UCSB    LIBRARY 

xsnog 


/^f^' 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/biblesciencefaitOOzalimiala 


Bible,  Science,  and  Faith, 


BY 

THE  REVEREND  J.  A.  ZAHM,  C.  S.  C, 

PROFESSOR    OF   PHYSICS   IN   THE    UNIVEHSITV    OF    NOTRE    DAME;     AUTHOR 

OF    "sound   and    music,"    'catholic    SCIENCE   AND 

CATHOLIC   SCIENTISTS,"    ETC. 


" '}l6r/  f5c  ovTE  ij  yvuaic  avev  Tr/oTfWf,  ov-d'  ?}  niartg  avEV  jrufTfwf."- 
Clement  of  Alexandria. 


Behold  the  star-writ  book  outspread  in  space, 
Read  thou  the  rock-bound  tome  the  ages  trace, 
And  from  them  learn  that  mortal  mind  nor  hand 
Of  Nature's  smallest  force  hath  full  command. 

Ay,  knowledge  springs  from  faith,  as  bursts  the  flower 
From  hidden  seed,  while  in  that  blossom's  dower 
Faith  lives  anew.     'Twas  Eden's  fateful  tree 
That  shrouded  science  in  dim  mystery. 


BALTIMORE: 

JOHN    MURPHY    &    CO. 

1895. 


Copyright,  1894,  by  John.  Murphy  &  Co. 


TO 


THE  VERY  REVEREND  GILBERT  FRANgAIS,  C.S.C. 

Supekiok-Genekal  of  the  Congkegation  of  the  Holy  Cross, 
THE  CULTURED  SCHOLAR 


THE    SUCCESSFUL    EDUCATOR, 


THIS   BOOK 


IS  AFFECTIONATELY  DEDICATED. 


INTRODUCTION. 


//'~\URS  is  pre-eminently  an  age  of  intellectual  fer- 
^-^  ment — an  age  of  discovery  and  discussion  and 
co-ordination.  But  in  nothing  is  this  mental  quicken- 
ing and  activity  so  conspicuous  as  in  questions  bearing 
on  science  in  its  relations  to  religion.  Hence  the 
interest  aroused  by  all  discoveries — scientific,  histor- 
ical, and  archaeological — which  directly  or  indirectly 
affect  the  Bible,  or  tend  in  any  way  to  modify  our 
views  of  its  contents,  or  throw  new  light  on  difficult 
and  disputed  passages.  Hence  also  the  interest  which 
attaches  to  what  has  unfortunately,.  I  think,  been 
called  the  Higher  Criticism,  and  hence,  too,  the  avidity 
with  which  the  reading  public  follows  current  contro- 
versies respecting  the  origin  and  age  of  our  race,  as 
well  as  those  regarding  other  similar  topics,  which, 
owing  to  the  results  of  modern  research, rwe  must  now, 
perforce,  consider  from  new  points  of  view.  ;  A  more 
extensive  acquaintance  with  the  natural  and  physical 
sciences,  and  the  accumulation  by  Egyptologists  and 
Assyriologists  of  a  large  mass  of  new  historical  facts 
of  far-reaching  importance,  have  thrown  a  flood  of 
light  on  many  parts  of  the  Bible  which  previously 
were  ill  understood,   if  at  all,  and  have  supplied  us 

5 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

with  the  necessary  data  for  the  sohition  of  numerous 
perplexing  problems  of  a  scientifico-scriptural  charac- 
ter which  before  were  regarded  as  mysteries  that  were 
simply  inexplicable. 

Those  who  still  view  the  Bible  as  a  divinely  inspired 
book,  despite  the  repeated  attacks  made  on  its  authen- 
ticity and  inspiration,  as  well  as  those  who  yet  hold  to 
the  teachings  of  their  faith,  notwithstanding  the 
theories  of  a  certain  school  of  scientists,  who  relegate 
religion  and  belief  in  a  personal  God  to  the  limbo  of 
idle  fancies,  are  frequently  accused  of  forswearing 
their  liberty  of  thought,  and  of  voluntarily  placing 
themselves  in  a  condition  of  intellectual  thraldom 
which  incapacitates  them  from  appreciating  the  true 
significance  of  the  most  important  inductions  and  gen- 
eralizations of  modern  science.  Groundless  as  this 
charge  is,  there  are  not  a  few,  even  among  intelligent 
people,  who  believe  it  to  be  substantially  true. 

And  yet  nothing  could  be  more  false  or  absurd.  As 
well  say  that  the  mariner  forfeits  his  freedom  of  ac- 
tion because,  forsooth,  he  gives  heed  to  the  buoys  and 
lighthouses  which  are  stationed  along  his  course,  and 
which  signalize  reefs  and  shoals  and  indicate  places 
where  the  safety  of  his  vessel  would  be  imperilled  or 
where  navigation  is  impossible.  What  buoys  and 
lighthouses  are  to  the  seafaring  man,  that  expressions 
of  revealed  truth  and  principles  of  Christian  philos- 
ophy are  to  the  man  of  science.  They  are  so  manyj 
beacons  warning  him  of  the  hidden  rocks  of  religious 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

r  error  or  the  treacherous  coast-line  of  a  false  philoso- 
1  phy.  They  are  lights  in  the  darkness  which  point 
J  out  the  path  which  he  may  travel  in  safety,  and  whicli 
/  disclose  to  him  the  treacherous  shallows  where  dan- 
'^     ger  is  certain  and  destruction  inevitable. 

As  the  master  of  a  ship  neither  sacrifices  his  in- 
tellectual freedom  nor  commits  an  act  of  unwisdom 
by  following  the  indications  of  buoy  and  lighthouse, 
so  neither  does  the  man  of  science  forfeit  his  liberty 
i  of  thought  nor  violate  the  dictates  of  right  reason  in 
suffering  himself  to  be  guided  by  the  teachings  of  an 
infallible  faith  or  by  the  divinely  inspired  words  of 
the  Book  of  books.     And  as  the  mariner's  progress  is 
;  not  impeded  by  the  number  of  lighthouses  along  his 
i  course,  but  rather  assisted,  so  likewise  is  the  man  of 
science  materially  aided  in  his  search  after  scientific 
itrutli  by  the  beacon-lights  of  faith  which  point  out  to 
ihim  in  ^^  unmistakable   manner  the   true   and  safe 
(realms  of  science  and  philosophy. 

The  truths  of  faith  and  the  truths  of  science  belong 
to  different  categories  indeed,  but  notwithstanding 
this  fact  they  can  never  come  into  conflict.  The 
truths  of  science  are  of  the  natural  order,  while  the 
truths  of  faith  belong  to  an  order  which  is  supernatu- 
ral. But  both  have  God  for  their  author,  and  as  He 
cannot  contradict  Himself,  and  as  truth  cannot  be 
opposed  to  truth,  so  the  truths  of  faith  never  can  be 
at  variance  with  the  certain  conclusions  of  science. 
Whether  we  study  the    Bible   or  the  great  book  of 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

Nature,  we  in  either  case  have  before  us  the  Ahnighty's 
record,  and  the  truths  inculcated,  if  so  be  that  we  read 
aright,  will  in  all  cases  be  in  perfect  harmony  with 
one  another  as  well  as  with  Truth  itself.  The  testi- 
mony, therefore,  of  Holy  Writ  and  the  testimony  of  the 
rocks,  far  from  being  contradictory,  will  always,  we 
shall  find,  be  identical  in  evidence  as  they  are  one  in 
origin. 

This  being  the  case,  the  man  of  science  is  not  only 
thoroughly   untrammelled   in   his  work,   butjjie   has 
absolutely  nothing  to  apprehend,  so  far  as  his  faith  is 
concerned,  from  the  most  searching  and  the  most  pro- 
found investigations  which  may  be  instituted  in  any 
of  the  manifold  departments  of  historical  or  scientific 
research  and  criticisinj     On  the  contrary,  he  welcomes 
every  genuine  contribution  to  science  as  a  precious 
addition  to  the  already  vast  store  of  knowledge,  and 
he  encourages  the  most  thorough  investigation  in  every 
line  of  human  inquiry  as  something  which  is  sure  to 
issue  in  results  which  shall  not  only  be  of  value  to 
',     science,  but  which  shall  also  be  of  priceless  worth  in 
'j    illustrating  and  corroborating  the  truths   of  faith   as 
V  well. 

Should  we  desire  a  proof  of  these  assertions,  we  have 
it  to  hand  in  the  life  and  works  of  the  most  eminent 
representatives  of  every  branch  of  science  and  in  the  pos- 
itive declarations  of  the  ablest  leaders  of  thought  of  all 
time.  Copernicus,  Mersenne,  Linnaeus,  Champollion, 
Cuvier,  Pascal,  Newton,  Sir  Humphry  Davy,  Faraday, 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

Ampere,  Caucliy,  Descartes,  Johann  Miiller,  Schwann, 
Iv.  Agassiz,  Lenormant,  Secchi,  Leverrier,  Dana,  Pas- 
teur, Van  Beneden,  and  scores  of  others  equally  illustri- 
ous, are  undying  witnesses  of  the  essential  oneness  of 
the  truth  of  science  and  faith,  and  of  the  certain  con- 
viction, which  these  great  exponents  of  science  al- 
ways entertained,  that  the  book  of  Nature  and  the 
book  of  the  Spirit,  although  appealing  to  us  in  differ- 
ent tongues,  ever  voice  the  same  testimony  and  pro- 
claim the  same  truth.  They  both,  in  words  eloquent 
and  sublime,  tell  us  of  a  God  infinite  in  wisdom  and 
love  and  perfection,  who  ordains  all  things  well,  and 
who  compasses  His  ends  with  infinite  knowledge  and 
power. 

(  No,  the  man  of  science  is  not  intellectually  ham- 
pered because  he  happens  to  be  a  man  of  faith  and  of 
strong  religious  persuasions.^  His  acceptance  of  the 
Bible  does  not  handicap  him  in  research  nor  preclude 
him  from  enjoying  the  completest  mental  liberty  of 
which  mortal  man  is  capable.  His  faith  shields  him 
from  danger  as  the  beacon-light  protects  the  mariner 
from  harm,  but  it  in  no  wise  restricts  his  freedom  of 
thought  or  action.  By  hearkening  to  the  gentle  voice 
of  religion  he  escapes  the  errors  of  Atheism,  Panthe- 
ism, Materialism,  and  Monism,  which  are  at  present 
so  rampant,  and  which  have  more  than  anything  else 
obstructed  research  and  retarded  the  progress  of  true 
science. 

One  may  indeed  reject  the  truths  of  the  Bible   and 


lO  INTRODUCTION. 

discard  the  teachings  of  faith,  as  the  mariner  may 
ignore  the  saving  bell  or  the  friendly  pharos,  but  he 
does  so  at  his  peril.  Far  from  gaining  anything  by 
this  mad  assertion  of  independence — an  independence 
which  means  not  liberty  and  life,  but  rashness  and  de- 
struction— he  inevitably  loses,  and  his  loss  carries  with 
it  the  loss  and  death,  it  may  be,  of  others  besides. 
There  is  too  much  of  doubt  and  uncertainty  in  the 
tvorld  of  science  for  us  to  decline  the  undeniable  helps 
i  of  revelation — too  much  fog  and  darkness  enveloping 
i  many  of  the  problems  of  philosophy  for  us  to  close 
our  eyes  to  the  sun  of  Truth  or  for  us  to  make  naught 
of  the  light  of  God's  inspired  word. 

Speaking  for  my  single  self — and  I  am  sure  I  but 
echo  the  sentiments  of  all  Christian  men  of  science — 
(l  can  honestly  and  trul}-  affirm  that  I  have  never  once 
felt,  during  the  quarter  of  a  century  and  more  which 
I  have  given  to  the  study  of  religio-scientific  questions, 
that  the  teachings  of  faith  have  in  any  way  embar- 
rassed me,  or  detracted  in  the  slightest  degree  from 
my  enjoying  the  fullest  measure  of  intellectual  free- 
dom!]) And  this  is  not  because  I  have  ever  been  dis- 
posed to  minimize  the  force  and  scope  of  dogma  or 
sought  to  explain  away  the  certain  declarations  of 
Scripture,  for  it  has  never  entered  my  mind  to  do 
either  the  one  or  the  other.  No  one  could  be  more 
strenuously  opposed  to  rationalism  in  matters  of  re- 
ligion than  I  am,  and  no  one  could  yield  more 
ready  and  unconditional   acquiescence  to  the   teach- 


INTRODUCTION.  1 1 

ings  of  the  Church  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  f^iith 
and  morals. 

Rationalism  in  religion,  however,  is  quite  a  dif- 
ferent thing  from  a  legitimate  use  of  the  reason  in 
discussing  questions  of  science  and  history  and  archce- 
ology  which  may  be  incidentally  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture or  are  indirectly  and  remotely  connected  with 
some  teaching  of  faith.  Herein  I  claim,  as  every  one 
may  claim — and  faith  and  the  Church  are  the  first  to 
grant  all  the  lawful  demands  of  the  intellect — perfect 
freedom  of  investigation  according  to  the  principles  and 
methods  of  science,  prescinded  from  all  the  restraints 
of  petty  dogmatism,  and  the  questionable  authority  of 
systems  which  are  obsolete  or  of  schools  which  have 
long  survived  their  period  of  usefulness.  Among 
such  questions  are  those  discussed  in  the  following 
pages,  especially  the  questions  concerning  the  Mosaic 
Hexaemeron,  the  Noachian  Deluge,  the  origin  and 
antiquity  of  the  human  race,  and  the  biblical  chronol- 
ogy, not  to  mention  a  number  of  correlative  topics  of 
similar  purport. 

Parts  I.  and  II.  of  this  work  are  composed  of  articles, 
revised  and  annotated,  which  have  appeared  in  the 
American  Ecclesiastical  Revieu\  while  Part  III.  em- 
braces a  series  of  papers  which  were  printed  in  the 
American  Catholic  Quarterly  Review.  The  articles 
cover  substantially  the  same  ground  as  a  course  of 
lectures  which  I  gave  last  year  before  the  Catholic 
Summer  School  at  Plattsburgh,  N.  Y. — lectures  which 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

excited  widespread  interest,  and  which  for  some  time 
furnished  both  the  religious  and  the  secular  press  with, 
special  material  for  comment  and  criticism.  With  few 
exceptions  I  have  more  than  reason  to  be  gratified 
with  the  complimentary  notices  given  of  the  lectures, 
especially  by  the  secular  press,  and  for  the  friendly 
spirit  which  it  displayed  on  all  occasions,  as  well  as  for 
the  extreme  interest  it  manifested  in  the  questions  dis- 
cussed. It  is  in  consequence  of  these  kindly  notices,  as 
well  as  of  my  desire  to  comply  with  repeated  requests 
from  all  parts  of  the  United  States  and  Europe  to  have 
the  lectures  published,  that  I  now  give  this  volume  to 
the  public,  trusting  that  it  will  prove  an  acceptable 
contribution  to  a  subject  which  is  daily  growing  in 
interest  and  importance. 

For  the  benefit  of  readers  who  may  wish  to  pursue 
further  the  questions  of  which  this  book  treats  I  have 
endeavored  to  indicate  in  the  footnotes  the  chief 
authorities  I  have  followed,  and  to  give  volume  and 
page  for  the  quotations  and  extracts  I  have  reproduced. 
In  attempting  to  discuss  several  great  and  comprehen- 
sive questions  within  the  compass  of  a  single  small 
volume  I  have  been  necessarily  brief,  but,  I  trust,  not 
obscure.  For  all  shortcomings  which  may  be  de- 
tected— and  no  one  is  more  conscious  of  their  existence 
than  myself — I  crave  in  advance  the  reader's  benignity 

and  indulgence. 

J.  A.  ZAHM,  C.  S.  C. 
Notre  Dame  University, 
May  22,  1894. 


CONTENTS. 


PART   I. 

THE  MOSAIC  HEXAEMERON  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  EXEGESIS 
AND  MODERN  SCIENCE. 


CHAPTER  I. 

MOSES  AND  SCIENCE. 

PAGE 

Systems  of  cosmogony  and  geogony. — The  world-egg  of  the  Poly- 
nesians and  Hindus. — Hindu  view  of  the  earth. — Natural  history 
of  the  Hindus. — Cosmogonies  of  Homer  and  of  the  Ionic  School. 
— Theories  of  Pythagoras  and  Ptolemy. — Opinion  of  Plato. — The 
cosmogony  of  Moses. — Declarations  of  modern  scholars  respecting 
the  Mosaic  cosmogony. —  Dillman  and  Donoso  Cortes  On  the  Gene- 
siac  narrative  of  creation. — Chief  lessons  taught  by  the  cosmogony 
of  Moses. — Statement  of  Cuvier. — Genesis  and  science. — Words  of 
Linnseus.^Difficulties  of  Genesis. — Exploded  theories. — Liberty  of 
thought  enjoyed  by  children  of  the  Church. — The  Bible  not  a  text- 
book of  science. — Declarations  of  Cardinal  Newman  and  Father 
Ryder. — Faith  and  science  always  at  one 23 

CHAPTER   n. 

ALLEGORISM  AND  LITERALISM. 

The  Alexandrine  School  as  represented  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  and 
Origen. — Allegorical,  mystical,  or  ideal  systems  of  interpretation. 
— The  Syrian  School  and  the  literal  system  of  exegesis. — The  theory 
of  intervals  or  restitution. — The  period  or  concordistic  system. — The 
eclectic  .system  of  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  St.  Augustine. — Philo 
Judaeus. — Views  of  Clement  of  Alexandria. — Genius  and  achieve- 

13 


14  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 


ments  of  Origen. — His  erudition  and  love  of  science. — Opinion  of 
St.  Athanasius. — The  Alexandrine  theory  in  the  light  of  geology  and 
palaeontolog)'. — Schools  of  Antioch,  Edessa,  and  Caesarea. — Teachings 
of  St.  Ephrem. — Views  of  St.  John  Chrysostom. — The  Hexaemeroti 
of  St.  Basil. — Gnostics  and  Neo-Platonists. — Mistakes  of  St.  John 
Chrysostom  and  Cosmas  Tndicopleustes. —  Defects  of  extreme  literal- 
ism and  allegorism. — A  via  media .44 

CHAPTER    III. 

ST.  GREGORY  OF  NYSSA  AND  THE  NEBULAR  HYPOTHESIS. 

Caesarea,  "  the  metropolis  of  the  arts  and  sciences." — Objections  of  the 
Manichaeans  and  of  Julian  the  Apostate. — Love  of  science  mani- 
fested by  the  Cappadocian  Doctors. — Learning  and  brilliancy  of  St. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa. — Erroneous  views  entertained  by  the  earlier 
students  of  science. — Philosophic  method  of  St.  Gregory. — He 
avoids  the  excessive  allegorism  of  the  Alexandrine  and  the  exag- 
gerated literalism  of  the  _  Syrian  Schools. — Gregory's  system  of  cos- 
mogony explained. — Meaning  of  the  words  "  void  and  empty  " — 
inanis  et  vacua — as  used  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis. — Marvellous 
intuitions  of  St.  Gregory. — The  primitive  nebulous  matter  according 
to  Gregory,  and  his  views  regarding  the  origin  of  the  solar  and  stel- 
lar systems. — Realization  of  difficulties  which  could  not  be  solved 
until  a  much  later  period. — St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  the  father  and 
founder  of  the  modern  school  of  scriptural  interpretation,  and  the 
originator  of  the  nebular  hypothesis  as  subsequently  developed  and 
explained  by  Laplace 60 

CHAPTER  IV. 

ST.  AUGUSTINE  AND  EVOLUTION. 

St.  Augustine's  knowledge  of  profane  science. — His  keen  intellect,  crit- 
ical acumen,  and  logical  method. — Eminent  as  philosopher,  theo- 
logian, and  exegetist. — Founder  and  chief  representative  of  the 
eclectic  school  of  interpretation. — His  doubts  and  difficulties. — 
Various  systems  adopted  and  rejected. — His  most  important  works 
on  cosmogony.  The  meaning  of  the  word  "  day  "  as  employed  in 
the  Mosaic  account  of  creation. — St.  Augustine's  view's  regarding  the 
government  of  the  universe  by  law. — His  ideas  concerning  miracles 
and  specific  creations. — His  interest  in  Hebrew  cosmogony. — The 
six  days  of  creation  and  their  explanation. — Creation — ex  nihilo — 


CONTENTS.  1 5 

PAGE 

of  primordia!  matter,  and  evolution  of  worlds  from  primitive  nebulous 
matter. — Precursor  and  prophet  of  the  modern  school  of  exegesis. 
— Creation  by  secondary  causes,  or  derivative  creation. — St.  Augus- 
tine anticipates  the  teachings  of  modern  evolutionists. — His  cansales 
rationes. — The  opus  creationis  and  the  opus  formationis. — Animals 
and  plants  created  potentially,  not  as  they  now  appear. — The  saint's 
exuberance  of  language  and  wealth  of  illustration. — Formless  mat- 
ter.— Theory  of  creation  as  held  by  the  Fathers  and  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas. — The  laws  of  nature. — Principles  of  exegesis. — Value  of 
science  and  philosophy  in  the  service  of  faith. — Invariability  of  the 
principles  of  exegesis,  and  changeableness  of  scientific  theories. 
— St.  Gregory's  views  on  the  transformation  of  matter — on  the 
nature  of  light. — Modern  theories  respecting  the  nature  of  light. — 
Nothing  in  modern  science  to  impair  the  truthfulness  of  the  Mosaic 
cosmogony. — Perfect  harmony  between  Genesis  and  science     ...      70 


CHAPTER   V. 

MODERN  THEORIES  OF  COSMOGONY  AND  INTERPRETATION. 

The  restitution  or  interval  theory,  a  link  between  the  literal  and  period 
theories. — Proposed  by  Buckland  and  favored  by  Chahners  and 
Cardinal  Wiseman. — The  period  or  concordistic  theory,  proposed  by 
Cuvier,  and  the  one  most  favored  at  present. — According  to  this 
theory  the  word  "'day,"  as  used  in  the  Genesiac  narrative  of  creation, 
signifies  an  indeterminate  period  of  time. — The  Mosaic  days  meta- 
phorical, not  only  as  to  their  signification,  but  also  as  to  their  number. 
— Creation  of  organized  beings  according  to  Genesis. — Barrande 
and  Cuvier  on  Genesis  and  geology. — The  concordistic  theory  but 
provisional. —  The  theory  of  Bishop  Clifford,  who  regards  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  not  as  an  historical  narrative,  but  as  a  ritual  hymn. 
— Reasons  in  support  of  this  view. — Intellectual  freedom  of  the 
Fathers  and  Doctors  of  the  Church. — St.  Augustme  on  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Genesiac  account  of  creation. — Inspiration  of  the 
biblical  writers. — Father  Faber  on  religion  and  science. ^No  pos- 
sible antagonism  between  science  and  faith,  and  none  between 
science  and  Genesis. — Recapitulation  and  conclusion 92 


1 6  CONTENTS. 

PART    II. 

THE   NOACHIAN  DELUGE. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  GEOGRAPHICAL  AND   ZOOLOGICAL   UNIVERSALITY  OF 
THE  DELUGE. 

PAGK 

Interest  attaching  to  the  subject. — Notions  of  early  geologists  regarding 
fossils  as  reliquice  Diluviame. — Voltaire's  opinions. — Views  of  Buck- 
land  and  Moigno. —  When  and  by  whom  the  geographical  univer- 
sality of  the  Deluge  was  first  called  in  question. — Teaching  of  fossil 
remains. — Number  of  species  of  animals. — Divers  centres  of  crea- 
tion and  distribution. — Multiplication  of  miracles. — The  water  of 
the  Deluge. — Universal  terms  employed  in  the  narrative  of  the 
Deluge ;  their  significance. — Illustrations. — Teaching  of  Fathers  and 
Doctors. — Statements  of  Pallavicini,  St.  Thomas,  Patrizzi,  and 
Fessler. — Exceptions  noted. — Views  of  Franzelin  and  Suarez.— Not 
of  faith  that  the  Deluge  was  universal,  either  as  to  the  earth's  sur- 
face or  as  to  the  animals  which  inhabit  it. — An  open  question  to  be 
settled  by  science 119 


CHAPTER   II. 

THE  ANTHROPOLOGICAL  UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE  DELUGE. 

Novelty  of  the  question. — Broached  but  recently.  The  Church  has 
never  taught  that  the  universal  destruction  of  mankind  is  of  faith. 
— Restricted  meaning  of  universal  terms. — Objections  on  the  part 
of  science  against  the  ethnographical  universality  of  the  Deluge. — 
The  teachings  of  geology,  archaeology,  ethnology,  physiology,  and 
linguistics. — The  Deluge  in  the  light  of  scriptural  exegesis. — Opinion 
of  Canon  Motais. — "  Sons  of  God  and  daughters  of  men." — Who 
were  the  Cainites? — Prophecy  of  Balaam. — Advocates  of  the  theory 
of  a  restricted  deluge. — Resume  of  the  question  by  Abbe  Motais. 
— Opinion  of  Cardinal  Gonzalez. — Liberty  of  thought  m  contro- 
verted questions. — Words  of  Leo  XIII. — Testimony  of  St.  Augus- 
tine and  St.  Tiiomas  Aquinas 152 


CONTENTS.  17 

PART     III. 

THE    AGE     OF     THE     HUMAN     RACE     ACCORDING      TO 
MODERN  SCIENCE  AND  BIBLICAL    CHRONOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  ANTIQUITY   OF   MAN    ACCORDING   TO    ASTRONOMY   AND 
HISTORY. 

PAGE 

Imaginary  antagonism  between  the  teachings  of  Scripture  and  the  find- 
ings of  modern  science. — Prevalence  of  Rationahsm  during  the  first 
centuries  of  the  Churcla's  history,  during  the  Middle  Ages,  and  in 
modern  times. — English  Deists,  French  Infidels,  German  Rational- 
ists.— The  work  of  Voltaire,  Reimarus,  Lessing,  Strauss. — Modern 
Materialism  and  Atheism. — Dogmatism  of  science. —  Hindu  astron- 
omy.— Zodiacs  of  Esneh  and  Denderah. — Champollion's  discov- 
eries.— Chronology  of  India. — Researches  of  Sir  William  Jones, 
Klaproth,  and  Heeren. — Opinions  of  Max  Miiller,  Mgr.  Laouenan, 
and  Barthelemy  Saint-Hilaire. — Boasted  antiquity  of  the  Chinese 
without  foundation. — Monuments,  papyri,  and  inscriptions  of  Egypt 
respecting  the  antiquity  of  man. — Dynasties  of  Manetho. — Views  of 
Brugsch,  Mariette,  De  Rouge,  and  Vigouroux. — Cuneiform  inscrip- 
tions of  Western  Asia. — History  of  Berosus. — Discoveries  of  Nie- 
buhr,  Grotefend,  Burnouf,  I.assen,  and  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson. — 
Investigations  of  Botta,  Layard,  and  Smith. — Library  of  Assur- 
banipal. — Chaldean  astronomy. — Researches  of  Strassmaier  and 
Epping. — Assyrian  chronology,  its  trustworthiness. — The  age  of 
our  race  according  to  Egj'ptology  and  Assyriology 177 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  MAN  ACCORDING  TO  GEOLOGY  AND 
CLIMATOLOGY. 

The  Golden  Age  of  the  pagan  poets. — The  teachings  of  certain  mod- 
ern scientists  regarding  primitive  man. — Views  of  Hackel. — His 
twenty-two  types  in  tlie  genealogy  of  man. — Bat/iybius  Ilackelii. — 
Alahis  and  Lemuria. — Scientific  Atheism. — Declarations  of  Hackel, 
Vogt,  Royer,  Virchow,  Buchner,  and  Flourens.— Principles  of 
2 


l8  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Monism. — Tertiary  man. — Investigations  of  Abb6  Bourgeois  and 
Abbe  Delaunay. — M.  Mortiilet's  Anthropopithecus. — Lyell's  Uni- 
formitarianism. — Alluvial  deposits. — Rate  of  growths  of  peat-bogs. 
— Formation  of  stalagmites. — De  Lapparent  on  the  Quaternary 
Epoch. — Was  Europe  inhabited  in  antediluvian  times? — Evi- 
dences of  cataclysmic  action. — Destructive  effects  of  earthquakes 
and  volcanoes. — Causes  of  the  Ice  Age. — Theories  of  Lyell,  Croll, 
and  Geike. — Observations  of  Prestwich  and  Wright. — Views  of 
Howorth  and  the  Duke  of  Argyll. — Ancient  Greek  and  Roman 
authors  on  the  climate  of  Europe. — Declaration  of  M.  Fuster. — The 
mammoth,  reindeer,  cave-bear,  cave-lion,  hyena,  and  Irish  elk. — 
Animals  which  have  become  extinct  within  historic  times     ....    219 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  MAN  ACCORDING  TO   PREHISTORIC 
ARCHAEOLOGY— GEOLOGICAL  CHRONO.METERS. 

Evolution  of  the  industrial  arts. — Views  of  Hesiod  as  compared  with 
those  of  modern  scientists  concerning  early  man. — The  ages  of 
Stone,  Bronze,  and  Iron. — No  fixed  period  of  time  for  the 
Stone  Age. — No  Age  of  Bronze  in  Italy  or  Gaul. — The  succession 
of  the  ages  not  general  nor  absolute — Implements  found  in  Chal- 
dean tombs  and  Assyrian  ruins. — The  Iron  Age  in  Africa. — State- 
ment of  Dr.  Livingstone. —  Schliemanns  excavations  at  Hissarlik 
and  Mycense. — Declarations  of  Percy  and  Tschering.— Meaning  of 
the  term  /;-,fAw/£7wV.  — Phoenician  bronze. — The  "ships  of  Tar- 
shish." — Observations  of  M.  Kerviler.— Remains  of  primitive  man. 
—Skulls  of  Canstatt  and  Neanderthal.— Kitchen-middings.— Lake- 
dwellings  of  Switzerland  and  elsewhere.— Geological  chronometers. 
—The  Falls  of  Niagara  and  St.  Anthony.— The  age  of  the  world 
and  the  duration  of  life  on  its  surface. — Conclusions  of  various 
scientists.— Building  theories  on  trifles.— Evidences  of  early  man 
in  the  Trenton  gravels. — Declaration  of  Goethe 266 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  MAN  ACCORDING  TO  THE  BIBLE. 

Difficulty  and  uncertainty  of  biblical  chronology.— Declarations  of  Abbe 
le   Hir   and  Sylvestre   de   Sacy.— Des  Vignoles'  "Chronology   of 


CONTENTS.  19 

PAGE 

Sacred  History." — VArt  de  Verifier  les  Dates,  by  the  Bene- 
dictines of  St.  Maur. — The  Hebrew  and  Samaritan  texts  of  the 
Scriptures. — The  Greek  version  of  the  Septuagint. — Variants  of  the 
divers  texts  and  versions. — Estimates  of  various  chronologists. — 
The  laljors  of  Scaliger,  Lepsius,  and  Usher. — Genealogical  lists  of 
the  patriarchs. —  Lacuna  in  these  lists. — Oriental  systems  of  gen- 
ealogy.— Illustrations  from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. — Probable 
mnemotechnic  reasons  for  incomplete  genealogical  tables  — Views 
of  Fathers  Bellynck  and  Brucker. — Value  of  the  chronological 
statements  of  the  Sacred  Text. — Opinions  of  Abb6  de  Foville  and 
Abbe  Bourgeois. — Fabre  d'Envieu  and  Valroger  on  Preadamites. — 
Sundry  estimates  respecting  the  antiquity  of  man. — Declaration  of 
Vigouroux. — Author's  opinion  regarding  the  age  of  our  race. — The 
question  to  be  settled  by  history  rather  than  by  science. — The  cer- 
tain conclusions  of  science  in  harmony  with  the  teachings  of  Holy  . 
Writ. — Vagaries  of  modern  science  and  scientists. — Indications  of 
a  return  to  a  more  conservative  rigiine 293 


PART   I. 

Ube  /IDosaic  Ibejaemeron  in  tbe  Xigbt  ot 
Eyegests  anb  /IDoDern  Science. 


"  Hsec  autem  de  Scriptura  pauca  posuimus  ut  congruere 
nostra  cum  philosophis  doceremus." 

"We  have  alleged  these  few  things  from  Scripture,  so  to 
show  that  our  doctrines  agree  with  those  of  the  philosophers." 
— St  Jerome.  Adversus  Jovinianum. 


BIBLE,  SCIENCE,  AND  FAITH. 


PART   I. 


Xlbe  /IDosaie  Iberaemeron  in  tbe  Xiobt  ot  Bjegesis 
anO  /IDoDern  Science. 


CHAPTER  I. 

moses  and  science. 

Cosmogonies  of  Polynesians  and  Hindus. 

PROMINENT,  if  not  chief,  among  the  questions 
that  from  time  immemorial  have  engaged  the 
attention  of  mankind  are  those  pertaining  to  the 
origin  and  constitution  of  this  world  of  ours.  All 
nations  and  all  peoples,  with  the  exception  of  those 
in  the  lowest  scale  of  intelligence,  have  had  their 
peculiar  theories  regarding  geogony  and  cosmogony, 
to  which  they  have  clung  with  greater  or  less  tenacity. 
Some  of  these  theories  were  very  elaborately  worked 
out  and  contained  many  elements  of  truth ;  others,  on 
the  contrary,  were  absurd  and  ridiculous  in  the  ex- 
treme, and  afford  us  the  most  striking  evidence  possi- 
ble regarding  the  simplicity  of  the  people  who  accepted 
them,  and  their  utter  ignorance  of  the  commonest  laws 
and  phenomena  of"  nature. 

23 


24  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

According  to  the  Sandwich  Islanders,  all  was  orig- 
inally a  vast  ocean.  It  was  then  that  an  immense 
bird  deposited  on  the  waters  an  egg  from  which  arose 
the  islands  of  Hawaii.  But  this  idea  of  a  world-egg 
is  not  peculiar  to  the  Hawaiians.  It  obtains  among 
the  Polynesians  generally,  and  has  prevailed  among 
many  peoples  of  the  Old  World  as  well.  We  find 
special  prominence  given  to  it  in  the  Ordinances  of 
Menu,  wherein  the  Hindu  cosmogony  is  developed  at 
length.  Brahma,  the  progenitor  of  all  the  worlds, 
was,  we  are  informed,  born  from  a  golden  egg.  In 
this  egg  the  supreme  power  remained  for  a  divine 
year.  Each  one  of  the  three  hundred  and  sixty  days 
of  this  divine  year  was  equal  to  12,000,000  of  our 
years.  After  this  long  period  the  cosmic  egg  broke, 
and  from  its  fragments  were  formed  the  heavens  and 
the  earth,  the  atmosphere  and  the  abyss  of  waters. 

The  earth,  according  to  the  S/ias^ras,  "is  a  circular 
plain,  resembling  a  water-lily.  Its  circumference  is 
four  hundred  millions  of  miles.  It  is  borne  upon  the 
backs  of  eight  huge  elephants ;  the  elephants  stand 
upon  the  back  of  an  immense  tortoise,  and  the  tortoise 
upon  a  thousand-headed  serpent.  Whenever  the  ser- 
pent becomes  drowsy  and  nods,  an  earthquake  is  pro- 
duced. .  .  .  The  earth  consists  of  seven  concentric 
oceans  and  as  many  continents.  They  are  arranged  in 
regard  to  each  other  like  the  waves  produced  by  throw- 
ing a  pebble  into  water.  The  first  ocean,  the  one 
nearest  the  centre,  is  filled  with  salt  water,  the  second 
with  milk,  the  third  with  the  curds  of  milk,  the  fourth 
with  melted  butter,  the  fifth  with  the  juice  of  the 
sugar-cane,  the  sixth  with  wine,  and  the  seventh  with 
fresh  water.     Bevond  the  seventh  ocean  is  a  land  of 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  2$ 

pure  gold,  but  inaccessible  to  man  ;  and  far  beyond 
that  extends  the  land  of  darkness,  containing  places 
of  torment  for  the  wicked. 

"The  continent  at  the  centre  of  the  earth  is  250,000 
miles  in  diameter.  From  its  centre  Mount  Meru, 
composed  entirely  of  gold  and  precious  stones,  rises  to 
a  height  of  600,000  miles.  Unlike  all  other  mountains, 
it  is  much  the  largest  at  the  top.  It  is  crowned  with 
three  golden  summits,  which  are  the  favorite  residences 
of  Brahma,  Vishnu,  and  Shiva,  Near  these  summits 
are  the  heavens  of  many  of  the  inferior  gods.  One  of 
them  is  described  as  being  800  miles  in  circumference 
and  40  miles  in  height.  Its  dome  is  supported  by  pil- 
lars composed  of  diamonds,  its  numerous  palaces  are  of 
pure  gold,  and  it  is  so  ornamented  with  brilliant  gems 
that  its  splendor  exceeds  the  brightness  of  twelve  suns. ' ' ' 

On  the  western  slope  of  Mount  Meru  are  found  beau- 
tiful stretches  of  country,  in  which  men  who  are  of  the 
color  of  gold  live  to  the  age  of  10,000  or  12,000  years. 

According  to  the  Mahabharata,  "The  beings  on  the 
earth  are  divided  into  two  classes — the  animate  and 
the  inanimate.  The  animals  constitute  fourteen  spe- 
cies, seven  of  which — monkeys,  bears,  elephants,  buf- 
faloes, wild  boars,  tigers,  and  lions — are  wild  in  the 
forests;  whilst  seven  others — men,  sheep,  goats,  cows, 
horses,  asses,  and  mules — live  with  men  in  towns. 
Man  is  the  first  of  domestic  animals;  the  lion  is  the 
first  of  savage  animals.  There  are  five  species  of 
plants."  ^ 

'  Historic  Incidents  and  Life  in  India,  by  Caleb  Wright  and 
J.  A.  Brainerd,  pp.  26,  27. 

^  Barthelemy  Saint-Hilaire,  in  \h&  Journal  des  Savants,  Jan., 
1868,  pp.  33,34. 


26  bible,  science,  and  faith. 

Greek  Cosmogonies. 

In  the  time  of  Homer,  about  qcxd  b.  c,  it  was 
believed  that  the  earth,  surrounded  by  the  river 
Oceanus,  filled  the  lower  half  of  the  sphere  of  the 
world,  while  .its  upper  half  extended  aloft — that 
Helios,  the  sun,  quenched  his  fires  every  evening 
and  relighted  them  the  following  morning,  after 
having  immersed  himself  in  the  deep  waters  of  the 
ocean. 

Thales  and  the  Stoics  and  those  of  their  school, 
we  are  informed  by  Plutarch,  taught  that  the  earth  is 
spherical,  like  a  ball;  Anaximander  maintained  that 
it  was  in  the  form  of  a  stone  column.  Many  fancied 
it  to  have  the  form  of  a  cube,  and  to  be  attached  by 
its  four  corners  to  the  vault  of  the  firmament.  Others, 
among  them  Leucippus,  imagined  it  to  have  the  shape 
of  a  drum,  while  others  still  declared  it  to  be  a  disk, 
protected  by  the  river  Oceanus  or  guarded  bj-  a 
serpent  which  encircled  it.  Epicurus,  who  accepted 
the  popular  belief,  taught  that  the  stars  were  extin- 
guished when  they  set,  and  relighted  when  they  rose 
again — that  the  earth  is  held  in  place  by  cords  or  lig- 
aments, just  as  the  head  is  connected  with  the  neck  or 
trunk.  To  explain  the  revolution  of  the  heavenly 
bodies,  Anaximander  taught  that  they  were  fixed  in 
crystal  spheres.  Anaximenes,  a  disciple  of  Anaxi- 
mander, maintained  that  the  earth  is  flat  like  a  table. 
He  likewise  held  the  same  view  regarding  the  sun. 
In  accordance  with  the  generally  accepted  opinion  of 
his  age,  he  thought  that  the  stars  were  fixed  like  nails 
in  a  solid  revolving  sphere,  which  w^as  invisible  by 
reason  of  its  transparency.     In  order  to  account  for 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  2/ 

the  peculiar  motions  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  planets, 
Pythagoras  devised  his  famous  theory  of  eccentrics 
and  epicycles^ — a  theory  that,  at  a  later  date,  was  adopt- 
ed and  developed  by  Ptolemy,  and  accepted  as  the  true 
explanation  of  planetary  movements  until  the  time  of 
Copernicus.  To  meet  new  difficulties  presented  by 
the  peculiar  motions  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  planets, 
Eudoxus  of  Cnidus  increased  the  number  of  crystal 
spheres  to  twenty-six.  But  these  spheres,  which  were 
regarded  as  so  many  heavens  arranged  one  inside  the 
other,  were  not  yet  sufficiently  numerous  to  account 
for  the  many  and  varied  motions  of  the  planets.  The 
number  was  therefore  augmented  until  astronomers 
recognized  no  fewer  than  fifty-six  of  these  solid,  re- 
volving, invisible,  transparent  spheres. 

Plato  regarded  the  heavenly  bodies  as  animated 
beings.  The  world,  according  to  him,  was  but  an 
animal,  and  its  spherical  form  was  the  type  of  per- 
fection. "The  Creator,"  he  tells  us  in  the  TinicEHs, 
"gave  to  the  world  the  figure  which  was  suitable  and 
also  natural.  Now,  to  the  animal  which  was  to  com- 
prehend all  animals  that  figure  was  suitable  which 
comprehends  within  itself  all  other  figures.  Where- 
fore he  made  the  world  in  the  form  of  a  globe,  round 
as  from  a  lathe,  having  its  extremes  in  every  direction 
equidistant  from  the  centre,  the  most  perfect  and  the 
most  like  itself  of  all  figures;  for  he  considered  that 
the  like  is  infinitely  fairer  than  the  unlike.  This  he 
finished  off",  making  the  surface  smooth  all  round  for 
many  reasons:  in  the  first  place,  because  the  living 
being  had  no  need  of  eyes  when  there  was  nothing 
remaining  outside  him  to  be  seen,  nor  of  ears  when 

^  Cf.  Histoire  de  V  Astronomie,  par  Ferdinand  Hoefer,  p.  107. 


28  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND    FAITH. 

there  was  nothing  to  be  heard;  and  there  was  no  sur- 
rounding atmosphere  to  be  breathed;  nor  would  there 
have  been  any  use  of  organs  by  the  help  of  which  he 
might  receive  his  food  or  get  rid  of  what  he  had 
already  digested,  since  there  was  nothing  which  went 
from  him  or  came  into  him;  for  there  was  nothing 
besides  him.  Of.  design  he  was  created  thus,  his  own 
waste  providing  his  own  food,  and  all  that  he  did  or 
suffered  taking  place  in  and  by  himself.  For-  the 
Creator  conceived  that  a  being  which  was  self-suf- 
ficient would  be  far  more  excellent  than  one  which 
lacked  anything;  and,  as  he  had  no  need  to  take  any- 
thing or  defend  himself  against  any  one,  the  Creator 
did  not  think  it  necessary  to  bestow  upon  him  hands; 
nor  had  he  any  need  of  feet  nor  of  the  whole  appa- 
ratus of  walking;  but  the  movement  suited  to  his 
spherical  form  was  assigned  to  him,  being  of  all  the 
seven  that  which  is  most  appropriate  to  mind  and 
intelligence;  and  he  was  made  to  move  in  the  same 
manner  and  on  the  same  spot,  within  his  own  limits 
revolving  in  a  circle.  All  the  other  six  motions  were 
taken  away  from  him,  and  he  was  made  not  to  partake 
of  their  deviations.  And  as  this  circular  movement 
required  no  feet,  the  universe  was  created  without  legs 
and  without  feet."  ^ 

The  foregoing  theories  of  geogony  and  cosmogony 
are  sufficient  to  show  how  hopelessly  at  sea  even  the 
greatest  philosophers  have  been  regarding  the  origin 
and  constitution  of  the  world.  It  were  eas>-  to  adduce 
numerous  other  similar  theories,  but  space  forbids. 
We  look  upon  them  all  as  childish  and  absurd,  and 
justly  so.  Nothing  could  be  more  preposterous, 
'  Jowett's  translation. 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  29 

according  to  our  views  of  nature,  than  some  of  the 
cosmogonic  notions  entertained  by  the  philosophers  of 
Greece  and  India.  Even  the  "divine  Plato"  did  not, 
as  we  have  seen,  escape  falling  into  the  most  ridic- 
ulous conceptions  of  the  universe.  True  it  is  that 
most  of  the  theories  mentioned  were  formulated  in  the 
infancy  of  science.  Their  authors  had  not  at  their 
disposal  the  delicate  instruments  of  precision  which 
now  enable  the  physicist  and  astronomer  to  solve  with 
ease  many  of  the  problems  which  the  sages  of  antiquity 
attacked  in  vain.  Being  deprived  of  the  geographi- 
cal knowledge  which  is  now  ours,  we  need  not  be 
surprised  that  they  accepted  the  most  erroneous  and 
foolish  ideas  respecting  the  form  and  size  of  the  earth 
and  the  creatures  which  inhabit  it.  Chemistry  was 
then  unknown,  and  geology  was  not  thought  of  until 
some  thousands  of  years  later.  Fancy  was  substituted 
for  fact,  and  the  most  extravagant  vagaries  were 
seriously  offered  in  lieu  of  sober  truth. 

Cosmogony  of  Moses. 

Contrast  we  now  the  cosmogonal  fantasies  and  spec- 
ulations of  even  the  most  eminent  exponents  of  ancient 
Hindu  and  Greek  thought  with  a  system  of  cosmog- 
ony which  dates  back  as  far  as — if  not  farther  than — 
any  of  those  of  which  I  have  spoken. 

"In  the  beginning,"  says  Moses,  "God  created 
heaven  and  earth."  How  simple,  and  yet  how  sub- 
lime !  By  a  fiat  of  omnipotence,  by  a  mere  act  of  His 
will — not  with  a  thought^  as  the  Hindus  taught — God 
created  the  world  and  all  that  is  in  it  from  nothing. 

The  first  chapter  of  Genesis  so  impressed  the  great 


30  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

pagan  rhetorician  Longinns  that  he  declared:  "The 
legislator  of  the  Jews,  who  was  not  an  ordinary  man, 
having  strongly  conceived  the  greatness  and  power  of 
God,  expressed  it  in  all  its  dignity  at  the  beginning  of 
his  laws  in  these  words  :  God  said.  Let  light  be,  and  it 
was  ;  Let  the  earth  be  made,  and  the  earth  was  made." 
Reflecting  on  the  same  sublime  declarations  of  Genesis, 
the  illustrious  scientist  and  scholar  Ampere  did  not 
hesitate  to  affirm  :  "Either  Moses  possessed  as  exten- 
sive a  knowledge  of  the  sciences  as  we  now  have,  or 
he  was  inspired."  "The  first  pages  of  the  Mosaic 
account  of  creation,"  declares  Jean  Paul,  "is  of 
greater  import  than  all  the  ponderous  tomes  of  natu- 
ralists and  philosophers."  It  gives  us  the  first  clear 
statement  of  creation  by  an  almighty  and  self-existent 
Being,  and  furnishes  us  views  of  God  and  His  crea- 
tures that  are  quite  different  from  those  which  are  at 
the  foundation  of  the  mythologies  and  false  philosoph- 
ical systems  of  the  ancient  world. 

But  the  "  Mosaic  idea  of  creation — an  idea  to  which 
the  sages  of  India,  Greece,  and  Rome  never  attained — 
is  something  with  which  we  have  been  familiar  from 
our  infancy,  and  for  this  reason  we  do  not  attach  the 
importance  we  otherwise  should  to  the  inspired  words 
of  Genesis."  If,  however,  we  give  but  a  cursory 
examination  to  the  pagan  ideas  which  prevailed  on  the 
subject  of  creation  among  the  peoples  of  Egypt, 
Phoenicia,  and  Babylon  at  the  time  of  Moses  and 
even  long  afterward — for  the  religion  of  Brahma  still 
affords  us  a  striking  instance  in  point — "we  shall," 
says  Haneberg,  "realize  the  full  importance  of  the 
Mosaic  dogma  regarding  God,  the  world,  and  man." 
In  Genesis  is  an  entire  suppression  "  of  that  irrational 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  31 

theory,  so  generally  accepted  in  antiquity,  of  a  di- 
vine being  who  was  a  slave  to  fate,  and  who  acted 
only  through  necessity  or  caprice.  In  it  is  banished 
the  terrible  apprehension  of  a  blind  tyranny  of 
chance  ;  of  a  maleficent  power,  the  enemy  of  man  ; 
or  of  other  similar  phantoms  that  weighed  down  upon 
paganism  like  a  mountain.  Delivered  from  these 
vain  fears,  man  may  look  at  creation  and  heaven 
with  confidence,  because  he  knows  that  a  personal 
God,  living  and  powerful,  is  the  Creator  of  the 
Universe."  ' 

"The  Mosaic  cosmogony  alone,"  declares  Delitzsch 
in  his  Commentary  on  Genesis^^  "proposes  to  us  the 
idea  of  a  creation  from  nothing,  without  eternal 
matter  and  without  the  intervention  of  any  intermedi- 
ate being  or  demiurge.  Paganism,  it  is  true,  permits 
us  to  catch  a  glimpse  of  this  idea,  but  it  is  much 
obscured.  Pagan  cosmogonies  either  suppose  pre- 
existing matter — that  is,  dualism — or  they  substitute 
emanation  for  creation,  and  then  fall  into  pan- 
theism." 

Even  such  a  rationalist  as  Dillman  when  speaking 
of  the  cosmogony  of  Genesis  is  forced  to  confess  that 
"it  does  not  contain  a  single  word  which  is  unworthy 
of  the  thought  of  God.  From  the  moment  an  attempt 
was  made  to  portray,  in  language  intelligible  to  man, 
the  work  of  creation,  something  that  will  ever  remain 
a  mystery  to  us,  it  has  been  impossible  to  outline  a 
picture  which  is  grander  or  more  worthy.  With 
reason,  then,  does  one  see  in  it  a  proof  of  its  revealed 
character.       Only   there   where   God   had    manifested 

^  Geschichte  der  bibl.  Offenbarung,  p.  12.  *P.  71. 


32  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND    FAITH. 

Himself  could  He  be  delineated.  It  is  the  work  of 
the  Spirit  of  Revelation."^ 

Contrasting  the  cosmogonies  of  the  ancient  pagan 
world  with  that  of  Genesis,  the  illustrious  Donoso 
Cortes  truthfully  observes  that  "in  spite  of  marked 
differences  they  all  have  this  in  common,  that  they 
exhibit  an  infinite  disproportion  between  the  princi- 
ple, the  mean,  and  the  end  ;  between  the  agent,  the 
act,  and  the  work  ;  between  the  Creator,  the  act;  His 
creation,  and  the  creature.  In  all  of  them  the  universe 
...  is  superior  in  dignity  and  beauty  to  the  Creator 
who  made  it  by  His  will — to  the  agent  of  which  it  was 
the  work  and  the  principle  which  gave  it  being.  This 
should  not  surprise  us  when  we  consider  that  the 
universe  is  a  creation  of  God,  whilst  its  Creator, 
according  to  all  these  cosmogonic  systems,  was  a  crea- 
tion of  men.  What  wonder,  then,  if  the  work  of  the 
Creator  was  superior  to  the  work  of  the  creature ! 
.  .  .  Where  shall  we  find  a  man  who,  being  part  of 
the  universe,  is  able  to  form  a  conception  of  a  God 
who  is  greater  than  the  universe,  if  he  be  not  inspired 
by  God?  .  .  .  Who  can  such  an  one  be  if  it  is  not 
Moses  ?' '  ^ 

But  Moses  is  not  satisfied  with  the  simple  declara- 
tion that  God  in  the  beginning  created  heaven  and 
earth.  He  descends  to  details.  He  tells  us  that  all 
that  exists,  all  that  we  can  see,  all  creatures,  the  sun, 
the  moon,  and  the  stars,  the  fishes  of  the  sea,  the  birds 
of  the  air,  the  animals  that  roam  the  earth,  the  flowers 
that  delight  the  eye,  the  fruits  that  are  grateful  to  the 

•  Genesis,  p.  9. 

"Quoted  by  Padre  Mir  in  his  learned  work,  La  Creadon, 
p.  29. 


\ 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  33 

taste,  man,  the  lord  of  creation,  are  the  works  of 
God.  And  because  they  are  the  works  of  God  he  also 
tells  us  that  "God  saw  that  it  was  good." 

Prime  Object  of  the  Genesiac  Narrative. 

The  reason  for  these  detailed  and  explicit  declara- 
tions is  manifest.  The  Hebrew  people  had  lived  among 
idolaters  and  were  surrounded  by  people  who  gave  di- 
vine worship  to  many  of  God's  creatures.  Moses 
wished  to  impress  upon  their  minds  that  neither  the 
sun,  nor  the  moon,  nor  the  stars,  neither  any  animal, 
nor  the  earth  which  affords  its  nourishment,  nor  any 
of  the  elements,  are  God,  as  was  supposed  by  the 
Sabianism  of  the  Orient,  especially  of  Chaldea;  by  the 
worship  of  animals  in  Egypt;  by  the  divine  honors 
paid  to  the  earth  by  the  Romans,  Pelasgians,  and 
Germans;  and  by  the  cult  of  the  fire- worshippers  of 
Greece  and  Persia.  All  these  things,  the  objects  of 
the  adoration  of  the  heathen,  are  the  works  of  God. 
There  is  no  power  opposed  to  God  which  is  equal  to 
Him.  Neither  is  matter,  as  such,  according  to  the 
later  opinions  of  the  Platonists,  the  seat  of  evil. 
Everything  is  the  work  of  God,  and  everything, 
therefore,  is  good.^ 

From  the  foregoing  it  is  manifest  that  the  prime 
object  of  the  Mosaic  narrative,  like  that  of  all  revela- 
tion, was  a  religious  one.  "The  Gospels,"  says  St. 
Augustine,  "do  not  tell -us  that  our  Lord  said,  'l| 
will  send  you  the  Holy  Ghost  to  teach  you  the  course 
of  the  sun  and  moon  ;'  we  should  endeavor  to  become 
Christians,  and  not  astronomers."     So  it  is  with  the 

'  Cf.    Hettinger'.s    Apologie   dcs    Christhenthums,   chap.    iv. 
vol.  iii. 
3 


34  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND    FAITH. 

Mosaic   account   of  creation.     Its   purport   is   not   to 

]  teach  geology,  physics,  zoology,  or  astronomy,  but  to 

/  afl5rm  in  the  most  simple  and  direct  manner  the  crea- 

^^   live  act  of  God  and  His  sovereignty  over  all  creatures. 

1  Its  object  is  not  to   anticipate  any  of  the  truths  of 

science  or  philosophy,  but  to  guard  the  chosen  people 

I    of  God  against  the   pernicious  errors  and  idolatrous 

practices  which  were  then  everywhere  prevalent. 

The  Holy  Father,  in  his  recent  admirable  Encyclical 
on  the  Study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  clearly  brings  out 
this  idea  when  he  says:  "  It  must  be  borne  in  mind, 
first  of  all,  that  the  sacred  writers — or  rather  the  Spirit 
of  God,  which  spoke  through  them — deemed  it  inad- 
visable to  teach  men  these  things — that  is,  the  inner 
constitution  of  visible  objects — since  this  conduces  in 
no  wise  to  salvation;  and  accordingly  these  writers, 
instead  of  entering  into  an  investigation  of  nature, 
sometimes  described  and  explained  things  in  a  cer- 
tain figurative  style  or  in  ordinary  language,  such  as 
is  employed  among  men,  even  of  deep  learning,  at 
the  present  day." 

All  the  cosmogonies  of  the  ancient  world — that  of 
Moses  excepted — were,  as  we  have  seen,  erroneous  not 
only  in  the  false  views  they  gave  of  God,  but  also  in 
the  notions  which  they  displayed  of  Nature  and  her 
laws.  One  and  all,  they  have  long  since  been  rejected 
by  science  as  ridiculous  and  absurd.  Not  so,  however, 
with  the  cosmogony  of  Genesis.  The  more  closely  it 
has  been  examined  in  the  light  of  the  science  of  these 
latter  days,  the  more  has  it  been  found  to  harmonize 
in  the  most  remarkable  manner  with  the  latest  results 
of  scientific  investigation.  The  words  of  the  great 
Cuvier,  who  wrote  in  the  early  part  of  the  century,  are 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  35 

as  true  now  as  when  they  were  first  penned.  "  Moses 
has  left  us,"  says  the  ilhistrious  naturalist,  "a  cosmog- 
ony the  exactitude  of  which  is  daily  verified  in  the 
most  admirable  manner.  Recent  geological  observa- 
tions are  in  perfect  accord  with  Genesis  regarding  the 
order  of  appearance  of  the  various  forms  of  organized 
beings. ' ' 

Genesis  and  Modern  Science. 

Again,  God  not  only  created  the  world  out  of  noth- 
ing, but  He  gave  it  its  present  form  during  a  succession 
of  epochs.  According  to  Genesis,  as  well  as  according 
to  science.  He  first  created  primitive,  nebulous  matter, 
and  after  a  long,  indefinite  period  of  time  He  fashioned 
from  this  matter  "without  form  "  all  the  myriad  forms 
of  the  organic  and  inorganic  worlds.  And,  according 
to  Genesis  as  well  as  according  to  science,  the  Creator 
proceeded  from  the  simpler  to  the  more  complex.  He 
first  created  light,  without  which  organic  development, 
as  we  know  it,  is  impossible.  He  then  separated  the 
earth  from  the  waters  of  the  ocean  and  prepared  it  for 
the  abode  of  terrestrial  life.  Plant  life  precedes  animal 
life  in  the  scheme  of  creation,  and  the  waters  of  the 
deep  are  peopled  before  the  dry  land  is  inhabited.  In 
both  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms  the  lower 
forms  of  life  precede  the  higher.  The  culmination 
of  the  work  of  creation  was  man,  whose  apparition, 
according  to  both  revelation  and  science,  was  poste- 
rior to  that  of  all  other  creatures. 

Here  we  have  in  a  few  lines  a  resume  of  some  of 

the   most   important   conclusions   of  modern   science 

respecting  the  origin  of  the  earth  and  its  inhabitants, 

/And  the  Mosaic  account,  be  it  remembered,  was  writ- 


36  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

ten  long  before  any  attention  was  given  to  the  natural 
or  physical  sciences,  and  many  thousand  years  before 
geology,  palaeontology,  and  astronomy  had  achieved 
those  triumphs  which  will  render  this  nineteenth 
century  of  ours  for  ever  memorabley 

And  not  only  this.  Moses  makes  statements  in  his 
narrative  that  were  for  many  long  ages  regarded  as 
contrary  to  science  and  philosophy — declares  truths 
which,  humanly  speaking,  could  not  have  been  known 
before  an  exhaustive  study  had  been  made  of  the  past 
life  of  our  globe,  and  before  the  telescope  and  the 
spectroscope  had  given  us  the  knowledge  we  now 
possess  concerning  the  origin  and  constitution  of  the 
material  universe. 

What  Moses  declared  in  the  infancy  of  our  race,  and 
what  science  now  affirms,  not  only  was  not  accepted  as 
true  in  the  earlier  ages  of  the  world,  but  was  rejected 
as  positively  erroneous.  The  various  profane  cosmog- 
onies that  obtained  from  time  to  time  among  divers 
peoples  were  against  it.  Philosophers  decried  it  as 
contrary  to  the  teachings  of  science,  and  rationalists 
and  unbelievers  fancied  they  discovered  in  its  supposed 
contradictions  an  argument  against  the  inspiration  and 
authenticity  of  the  Sacred  Record.  But  as  Genesis 
was  more  carefully  scrutinized  and  as  science  advanced 
it  was  found  that  a  remarkable  harmony  existed  be- 
tween the  two,  and  that,  far  from  being  contradict- 
ory, they  both  told  the  same  story,  although  in  differ- 
ent languages.  The  conclusion,  therefore,  is  inevit- 
able. There  is  something  in  Genesis  above  man — 
something  supernatural,  something  divine.  In  a  word, 
Moses  was  inspired.  In  the  words  of  Linnaeus:  "It 
is  materially  demonstrated  that  he  did  not  write  and 


THE   MOSAIC   riEXAEMERON.  37 

could  not  write  except  under  the  inspiration  of  the 
Author  of  nature^ — neutiquam  suo  inge?tw  sed  altiori 
ductit. ' ' 

Difficulties  of  Genesis. 

I  would  not,  however,  have  it  inferred  from  what 
has  been  said  that  there  are  no  difficulties  in  Genesis, 
or  that  I  am  disposed  to  underrate  their  magnitude. 
Far  from  it.  f  What  I  do  maintain  and  insist  on  is  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  that  is  con- 
trary to  any  of  the  certain  truths  of  science.  Scien- 
tific theories  without  number  have  been  formulated 
which  were  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the  Mosaic 
narrative,  but  theories  are  not  science.  In  the  last 
century  especially,  as  well  as  during  the  present  one, 
many  of  these  hostile  theories  were  based  on  geology 
and  palaeontology.  "  From  the  time  of  BufFon,"  wrote 
Cardinal  Wiseman  more  than  fifty  years  ago,  "system 
rose  beside  system,  like  the  moving  pillars  of  the  des- 
ert, advancing  in  threatening  array;  but,  like  them, 
they  were  fabrics  of  sand;  and  though  in  1806  the 
French  Institute  could  count  more  than  eighty  such 
theories  hostile  to  Scripture,  not  one  of  them  has  stood 
still  or  deserves  to  be  recorded."  ^ 

And  more  than  this.  All  sorts  of  extravagant  inter- 
pretations have  been  given  to  the  first  chapter  of  Gen- 
esis, some  of  which  were  even  more  absurd  than  the 
scientific  speculations  of  which  I  have  just  spoken. 
But  such  commentaries  are  no  more  to  be  accepted 
as  the  last  word  on  the  Mosaic  narrative  than  are  the 
hypotheses  and  fantasies  of  scientists  to  be  regarded  as 
veritable  science.     That  such  theories  and  interpreta- 

*  Science  and  Revealed  Religion,  vol.  i.  p.  268. 


38  BIBLE,  SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

tions  are  discordant  and  contradictory  is  no  evidence 
whatev^er  of  any  discrepancy  between  the  Mosaic  cos- 
mogony and  the /logical  deductions  from  the  known 
facts  of  science.  (Theories  and  conjectures  may  be  at 
variance  with  one  another,  but  science  and,  the  word 
of  God  never.) 

I  have  said^^  that  I  have  no  disposition  to  minimize 
the  difficulties  of  the  Mosaic  narrative  of  creation,  nor 
have  I.  I  think  one  may  safely  assert  that  no  one 
chapter  in  the  Bible  contains  so  many  and  so  great  dif- 
ficulties as  does  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis.  On  no 
single  chapter,  probably,  have  the  Fathers  and  school- 
men and  commentators  expended  more  time  and  learn- 
ing, and  in  no  instance  have  they  exhibited  a  wider 
divergence  of  views  than  when  endeavoring  to  explain 
this  self-same  chapter,  and  reconcile  certain  of  its  dec- 
larations with  the  known  or  supposed  teachings  of  pro- 
fane science. 

Scientific  Freedom  of  Catholics. 
And  just  here  it  may  be  observed  that  we  could  have 
no  better  illustration  of  the  perfect  liberty  of  thought 
enjoyed  by  the  children  of  the  Church  in  all  matters 
outside  of  positive  dogma  than  that  afforded  by  the 
diversity  of  views  entertained  by  saints  and  doctors 
respecting  the  true  meaning  of  many  controverted  pas- 
sages of  the  Mosaic  cosmogonj^  Commentators  have 
endeavored  to  accommodate  the  declarations  of  the 
Hebrew  lawgiver  to  the  scientific  notions  of  their 
time,  and,  as  a  consequence,  we  have  in  their  interpre- 
tations a  faithful  reflex  of  all  the  speculations  and 
vagaries  that  have  at  one  time  or  another  been  put 
forth  as  genuine  science.     We  often  hear  it  said  that 


THE    MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  39 

believers  in  dogma  and  tlie  Bible — especially  Catholics 
— are  so  hampered  by  restrictions  of  all  kinds  that  they 
are  ever  in  a  condition  of  intellectual  thraldom.  We 
are  told  that  there  are  many  questions  in  science  that 
we,  as  Catholics,  may  not  investigate,  much  less  dis- 
cuss, and  that  our  religious  beliefs  forbid  us  to  accept 
many  of  the  demonstrated  truths  of  science.  I  wish 
here  and  now  to  record  in  the  most  emphatic  manner 
possible  a  formal  and  explicit  denial  of  each  and  every 
one  of  these  imputations,  and  to  declare  that  they  are 
utterly  without  foundation  in  fact.  The  example  of 
the  Fathers  and  the  Schoolmen  and  the  commentators 
of  every  age  of  the  Church  gives  the  lie  to  such  fool- 
ish declarations.  In  everything  outside  of  revealed 
truth  and  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  the  Church  they 
have  shown  us  that  they  were  ever  permitted  the 
greatest  degree  of  latitude  in  exegesis,  and  that  they 
always  enjoyed  the  greatest  possible  measure  of  intel- 
lectual freedom.  They  recognized  all  along  that  the 
prime  object  of  the  Bible  is  to  save  souls,  and  not  to 
teach  science — that  its  main  purpose  is,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Cardinal  Baronius, I"  to  teach  us  how  to  go 
to  heaven,  and  not  how  the  heavens  go.  "y  The  learned 
Catholic  historian  and  Orientalist,  Frangois  Lenor- 
mant,  expresses  the  same  idea  when  he  declares  that 
the  object  of  Scripture  is  not  to  inform  us  as  to  "  how 
the  things  of  earth  go  and  what  vicissitudes  follow  one 
another  here  below.  The  Holy  Spirit  has  not  been 
concerned  with  the  revelation  of  scientific  truths  or 
with  universal  history.  In  such  matters  '  He  has 
abandoned  the  world  to  the  disputes  of  men' — tradidit 
mundum  disputationibiis  eontfn.'*''  *    In  questions,  then, 

'  The  Begin?ii?igs  of  History,  Preface. 


40  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

of  chronology,  biology,  astronomy,  geolog}-,  ethnology, 
and  anthropology  we  must  have  recourse  to  reason  and 
research,  to  observation  and  experiment.  Induction, 
and  not  revelation,  must  be  our  guide  in  all  such  mat- 
ters, except — and  this  is  very  rarely  the  case — when  a 
certain  and  incontrovertible  statement  of  fact  in  mat- 
ters of  science  is  made  by  the  Sacred  Text  itself.  The 
specific  unity  of  the  human  race  taught  both  by  the 
Bible  and  the  Church  is  a  case  in  point. 

It  is  a  grave  mistake,  therefore,  to  regard  the  Bible, 
especially  the  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis,  as  a  com- 
pendium of  science,  as  so  many  have  done.  For,  as 
Cardinal  Newman  observes,  "it  seems  unworthy  of 
the  divine  greatness  that  the  Almighty  should,  in  the 
revelation  of  Himself  to  us,  undertake  mere  secular 
duties,  and  assume  the  office  of  a  narrator,  as  such,  or 
an  historian,  or  geographer,  except  in  so  far  as  the 
secular  matters  bear  directly  upon  the  revealed  truth." 

Catholics  who  have  a  correct  knowledge  of  the 
teachings  of  their  faith  will  not  admit  that  they  are 
in  any  way  hampered  in  the  pursuit  of  science  by  the 
exigencies  of  dogma.  On  the  contrary,  they  claim 
and  enjoy,  in  the  truest  sense  of  the  word,  the  greatest 
mental  freedom — a  freedom  that  truth  alone  can  give  ; 
a  freedom  that  those  who  are  outside  the  pale  of  the 
Church  know  not  of — the  freedom  of  the  children  of 
God. 

In  the  case  of  a  Catholic  "it  is  not,"  as  Very  Rev. 
Father  Ryder  truthfully  remarks,  "so  much  his  free- 
dom of  investigation  as  his  freedom  from  investiga- 
tion that  is  controlled.  He  is  bound  to  be  rigid  and 
exacting  in  his  scientific  method,  to  maintain  cau- 
tiously all  the  reserv^es   of  doubt.     He  is   precluded 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  41 

from  that  facile  abandonment  to  the  prevailing  wind 
of  doctrine  which  is  so  characteristic  of  onr  modern 
scientific  world.  ...  A  Catholic  man  of  science 
may  be  a  specialist,  but  he  is  bound  to  be — nay,  he 
can  hardly  fail  to  be — something  more.  He  must  \ 
know  something  of  all  the  territories  of  science — their 
outlines  at  least — for  he  has  a  theology  which  is  more 
than  coextensive  with  them  all,  and  which  has  a  word 
to  say  of  each,  though  it  be  only,  as  is  commonly  the 
case,  to  assure  the  student  that  here  he  is  within  his 
right  and  that  his  way  is  clear."  ^ 

The  faith  of  Catholics,  consequently,  far  from 
restricting  their  liberty  of  research,  gives  it  a  vivify- 
ing principle  which  it  could  not  otherwise  possess. 
And  far  from  circumscribing  their  views  of  nature  or 
giving  them  false  notions  of  the  laws  and  phenomena 
of  the  material  world,  it  extends  their  horizon,  and 
illumines  the  field  of  their  investigation  with  a  bril- 
liance all  its  own.  The  mistake  made  by  many  in 
denying  to  Catholics  liberty  of  thought  in  the  study  of 
science  is  that  they  confound  liberty  with  license.. 
Revealed  truth  and  dogma  never  do  and  never  can 
conflict  with  science  ;  neither  are  they  incompatible 
with  the  most  perfect  intellectual  freedom.  They  are, 
however,  incompatible  with  intellectual  license.  They 
save  the  Catholic  scientist  from  many  errors  into 
which  those  who  are  not  guided  by  religious  truth 
inevitably  fall  ;  they  shield  him  from  the  blasts  of 
false  doctrine  which  the  Eolus  of  error  is  ever  sending 
forth  from  his  cave,  and  enable  him  to  steer  clear  both 
of  the  Scylla  of  ignorance  and  superstition  on  the  one 

"The  Proper  Attitude  of  Catholics   toward  Modern  Bible 
Criticism,"  in  the  Catholic  World,  June,  1893,  pp.  405  et  seq. 


42  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

hand  and  the  Charybdis  of  agnosticism  and  material- 
ism on  the  other.  They  protect  him  from  flighty 
speculations  which  always  issue  in  discomfiture.  They 
hold  him  to  the  terra  finna  of  true  science,  and  thus, 
jlike  Hercules,  he  is  able  to  vanquish  the  Antaeus  of 
fallacy  and  hallucination  with  comparative  ease. 

But  let  us  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  teaching 
of  the  various  schools  of  exegesis  that  have  existed 
in  diverse  periods  of  the  Church's  history.  A  brief 
resume  of  what  they  have  severally  taught  will  be  not 
only  interesting,  but  instructive  from  several  points  of 
view.  It  will  confirm  what  has  been  said  concerning  the 
liberty  of  thought  accorded  the  children  of  the  Church 
respecting  matters  outside  of  faith  and  dogma.  It  will 
show  that  while  entertaining  diverse  and  even  contra- 
dictory opinions  in  matters  of  science,  the  Fathers  and 
Doctors  were  always  of  one  mind  in  evervthing  that 
appertained  to  faith  and  revealed  truth.  I  And  more 
than  this:  it  will  prove  conclusively  something  that 
is  generally  ignored,  if  not  entirely  unknown,  and 
that  is  that  some  of  the  grandest  conceptions  and 
generalizations  attributed  to  modern  scientists  are 
in  reality  due  to  the  early  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers. 
Most  people  are  wont  to  credit  to  contemporary  science 
much  that  belongs  to  Tradition  and  the  School,  and 
this  because  they  have  been  taught  to  believe  that  all 
the  ideas  of  the  earlier  commentators  of  Genesis  were 
fantastical  and  contrary  to  the  results  of  modern  scien- 
tific researches.  \  Even  the  cursory  examination  that 
we  shall  be  abre  to  make  of  the  cosmogonic  views  of 
some  of  the  Church's  Doctors,  especially  St,  Gregory 
and  St.  Augustine,  will,  I  trust,  effectively  dispel  these 
erroneous   notions — notions  which  have  so  long  ob- 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  43 

tained,  even  among  those  who  should  know  better — 
and  demonstrate  beyond  any  possibility  of  doubt  that 
we  have  in  some  of  the  Fathers,  esj^ecially  the  two 
just  named,  the  precursors  of  the  most  illustrious  expo- 
nents of  a  true  theory  of  the  visible  universe  and  of 
evolution  of  the  various  forms  of  terrestrial  life.  We 
shall  find  that  they  have  anticipated  the  noble  con- 
ceptions of  Descartes,  Laplace,  and  Herschel,  and 
expressed  them  in  words  that  cannot  be  misunder- 
stood. And  we  shall  likewise  learn  that  they  have 
laid  down  principles  which  are  in  perfect  accord  with 
the  latest  and  most  approved  theories  regarding  the 
origin  and  constitution  of  the  universe  and  the  devel- 
opment of  the  manifold  forms  of  animal  and  vegetable 
life.  I  do  not  mean  by  this  to  assert  that  they  had 
anything  approaching  the  knowledge  we  now  possess 
of  the  natural  and  physical  sciences,  because  they  had 
not.  But  what  I  do  affirm — and  this  I  shall  insist  on, 
because  it  is  capable  of  the  completest  demonstration 
— is,  that  they  had  a  clear  conception  of  the  nature  of 
some  of  the  most  profound  problems  of  science  with 
which  the  human  mind  has  ever  grappled,  and  which 
even  now  cannot  be  said  to  have  received  a  complete 
solution.     But  more  of  this  as  we  proceed. 


CHAPTER   II. 

allegorism  and  literalism. 

Divers  Schools  of  Interpretation. 

ONE  of  the  greatest  diflSculties  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation  turns  on  the  mean- 
ing to  be  assigned  to  the  word  day.  This  is  a  difficulty 
which  has  been  recognized  from  the  earliest  ages  of  the 
Church  and  has  given  rise  to  divers  systems  or  schools 
of  interpretation.  Of  these  various  schools  it  will  be 
sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  review  briefly  the  teach- 
ings of  the  four  principal  ones. 

The  Alexandrine  School,  of  which  the  illustrious 
Origen  was  the  most  distinguished  representative, 
favored  what  is  known  as  the  qUegorical.,  7?iystical^  or 
ideal  system  of  interpreting  the  Genesiac  da}'s.  The 
Syrian  School  stoutly  opposed  the  teachings  of  the 
Alexandrines,  and  advocated  what  is  called  the  lii- 
eral  system.  The  most  eminent  exponents  of  this 
system  were  St.  Ephrem  and  St.  John  Chrysostom 
and  the  great  Cappadocian,  St.  Basil.  The  third  sys- 
tem, adopted  by  Cardinal  Wiseman,  Buckland,  Chal- 
mers, and  other  distinguished  scientists  of  their  time, 
defends  what  is  known  as  the  theory  of  intervals- Qpa 
restitution.  The  fourth  system,  which  is  the  one  now 
generally  preferred,  is  called  the  period  or  concordistic 
system.  The  last  two  systems  are  quite  modern  and 
do  not  antedate  the  present  century.     They  are  based 

44 


THE   MOSAIC   IIEXAEMERON.  45 

on  the  discoveries  of  geology  and  palseontology,  and 
are  an  attempt  to  reconcile  the  teachings  of  science 
with  those  of  revelation.  The  period  or  concordistic 
system  is  due  to  the  great  Cuvier,  who  gave  the  first 
exposition  of  it  in  182 1. 

Besides  these  four  systems  of  interpretation  I  must 
direct  attention  to  a  fifth,  known  as  \\\^cclectic  system 
— championed  by  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  St.  Augus- 
tine. It  has  had  many  followers,  and  has,  probably, 
wielded  a  greater  influence  in  exegesis,  and  that,  too, 
for  a  longer  time,  than  any  other  system  of  interpre- 
tation. 

Christian  School  of  Alexandria. 

According  to  the  xA.lexandrian  School,  the  Mosaic 
narrative  of  creation  is  to  be  interpreted  as  a  simple 
allegory.  The  six  days  are  not  to  be  understood  in 
a  literal,  but  in  a  mystical,  sense.  The  work  of  crea- 
tion was  not  distributed  over  a  period  of  six  days  of 
twenty-four  hours  each,  but  all  things  in  the  material 
universe — the  cosmos — were  created  instantly  and  simul- 
taneously. The  words  of  Moses  are  to  be  understood 
not  in  their  natural  and  ordinary  acceptation,  but  are 
to  be  interpreted  in  a  figurative  sense.  And  more  than 
this  :  by  this  method  of  procedure  the  text  was  forced 
to  disclose  divers  moral  and  dogmatic  teachings  which 
are  entirely  excluded  by  the  literal  and  common  mean- 
ing of  the  words. 

The  allegorical  method  of  interpretation,  which 
exercised  such  a  profound  influence  on  scriptural 
exegesis  in  tl:e  earlier  ages  of  the  Church,  was  intro- 
duced by  the  rabbinical  schools  of  Palestine  long 
anterior  to  the  Christian  era.     It,  however,  found  its 


46  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   PAITH. 

strongest  advocates  in  the  Judaeo-Alexandrine  School, 
of  which  Aristobulus  and  Philo  Judseus  were  the 
chief  representatives.  The  former  lived  about  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years  b.  c,  whilst  the  latter  was  a 
contemporary  of  our  Lord.  Philo  was  an  ardent 
admirer  of  the  Greek  philosophy,  especially  that  of 
Plato.  Of  him  it  was  said:  "Either  Plato  philonizes, 
or  Philo  platonizes."  He  endeavored  to  reconcile  the 
teachings  of  Plato  with  those  of  the  Hebrew  lawgiver, 
and  when  he  could  not  do  so  by  interpreting  Moses 
literally,  he  had  recourse  to  allegor}-.  According  to 
him,  the  narrative  of  the  creation  of  the  world  and  of 
man,  and  likewise  the  account  of  the  Garden  of  Eden, 
are  but  figures  and  symbols.  "When,"  says  Philo, 
"Moses  declares  that  God  completed  His  work  on  the 
sixth  day,  you  must  not  imagine  that  there  is  a  ques- 
tion of  an  interval  of  days,  but  of  the  perfect  number^ 
six."  This  is  the  number  of  perfection,  because  it 
contains  six  unities,  three  dualities,  and  two  trinities. 
When,  therefore,  the  words  of  Genesis  declare  that  the 
world  was  created  in  six  days,  we  must  understand 
that  this  is  nothing  more  than  a  metaphorical  declara- 
tion of  the  perfect  order  that  reigns  in  the  universe. 
"It  would  be  the  height  of  simplicity  to  think," 
affirms  the  Jewish  philosopher,  "that  the  world  was 
created  in  six  days,  or  indeed  that  any  time  whatever 
was  required."  ^ 

The  Christian  School  of  Alexandria  followed  closely 

^  A  perfect  nnmber  is  one  that  is  equal  to  all  its  divisors  or 
aliquot  parts.  The  first  in  the  order  of  numbers  is  6=1-1-2-1-3; 
the  second  is  28  =  i  -}-  2  -1-  4  -f-  7  -}-  14. 

^  Ei7/i9ff  Tzni'v  TO  oisa&ai  f^  fifiepaiC,  t]  Kad67iOV  xp^^u  Koofiov  yeyovtvai. 

— SacrcB  Legis  Allegor.,  lib.  i.  p.  41,  edit.  Tumebe. 


THE    MOSAIC    IIEXAEMKRON.  47 

the  allegorism  of  Philo.  Its  exponents,  like  the  Jew- 
ish philosopher,  reduced  the  narrative  of  Moses  to  a 
beautiful  allegory,  and  contended  that  God  created  all 
things  visible,  the  heavens,  the  earth,  and  all  that  it 
contains,  plants,  animals,  man,  in  an  instant  of  time. 
They  imagined  that  they  thereby  attributed  to  the 
Creator  an  action  more  in  harmony  vi^itli  His  power 
and  immutability.  And  the  accomplishment  of  this 
action,  which  they  conceived  to  be  unique  and  gen- 
eral, is,  they  declared,  plainly  indicated  in  the  first 
words  of  Genesis:  "In  the  beginning  God  created 
heaven  and  earth. '^ 

The  first  representative  of  this  school  whose  opinions 
on  the  cosmogony  of  Moses  have  been  preserved  to  our 
time  is  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  died  in  the  early 
part  of  the  third  century.  He  expressly  declares  that 
all  creatures  were  created  simultaneously,  bfiou — that 
the  distinction  in  the  Mosaic  narrative  of  the  six  days 
does  not  indicate  a  real  succession  of  time,  but  is  a 
manner  of  speaking  by  which  the  inspired  author 
accommodates  himself  to  our  intelligence  and  to  our 
habit  of  conceiving  things.  This  is  Philonism  pure 
and  simple. 

Teachings  of  Origen. 

But  it  is  in  Origen,  a  pupil  of  Clement,  that  we 
find  the  most  ardent  advocate  of  allegorism.  He  was 
unquestionably  the  most  learned  man  of  his  time. 
His  knowledge  was  truly  encyclopedic  in  character. 
He  was  not  only  a  master  of  all  branches  of  sacred 
knowledge,  but  was  profoundly  versed  in  all  the  de- 
partments of  profane  science  as  well.  Besides  this  he 
had  a  capacity  for  work  that  was  simply  stupendous. 


48  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND    FAITH. 

Living  in  the  greatest  intellectual  centre  of  the  world — 
"in  the  Babel  of  profane  erudition,"  asVillemain  calls 
Alexandria — surrounded  by  Gnostics  and  Neo-Plato- 
nists,  whose  intellects  were  as  acute  as  their  hatred  of 
Christianity  was  intense,  he  soon  perceived  the  neces- 
sity of  making  an  eflfort  to  reconcile  the  teachings 
of  faith  with  those  of  science  and  philosophy,  and  to 
show  that  the  truths  of  revelation  were  in  perfect  accord 
with  the  certain  principles  of  knowledge  taught  by 
Plato  and  Aristotle.  He  wished,  in  the  language  of 
Mgr.  Freppel,'  that  "  letters,  the  arts,  and  the  sciences 
should  form  the  propylsea  of  a  temple  of  which  phil- 
osophy should  be  the  base  and  of  which  theology 
should  be  its  summit  and  crown."  He  studied  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  from  every  point  of  view,  and  wrote 
numerous  and  exhaustive  commentaries  on  them.  He 
established  a  school  which  was  famous  throughout  the 
Orient,  and  introduced  a  system  of  exegesis  that  left 
its  impress  on  all  subsequent  systems. 

Unfortunately,  a  great  portion  of  Origen's  volumin- 
ous works  have  been  lost.  Enough,  however,  is  left 
of  his  writings  to  enable  one  to  know  his  mind  regard- 
ing  the  Genesiac  days  of  creation. 

Like  his  predecessors,  Philo  and  Clement,  Origen 
believed  in  the  simultaneous  creation  of  the  universe. 
His  reason  for  holding  this  opinion  was  because  he 
found  it  impossible  to  conceive  of  days,  like  the  first 
three  days  of  Genesis,  with  evenings  and  mornings, 
without  sun  and  moon.  "What  man,"  he  asks,  "pos- 
sessed of  ordinar}'  common  sense  will  believe  that  there 
could  have  been  a  first,  a  second,  and  a  third  day,  an 
evening  and   a   morning,  without   sun,   or  moon,  or 

*  Cours  d' Eloquence  Sacree,  Origlne,  tome  i.  p.  46. 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  49 

stars  ?' '  ^  For  this  reason  lie  does  not  hesitate  to  de- 
clare that  the  word  "days"  is  to  be  interpreted  figur- 
atively— that  it  means  not  divisions  of  time  or  dura- 
tion, but  refers  rather  to  the  order  or  gradation  of 
God's  works.  The  opinion  of  the  celebrated  bishop 
of  Alexandria,  St.  Athanasius,  respecting  simultaneous 
creation  was  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  Origen: 
"No  creature  is  older  than  another.  All  species  were 
created  at  the  same  time  by  a  single  fiat  of  the  Divine 
will."' 

But  Origen' s  teaching  regarding  the  days  of  creation 
is  negative  rather  than  positive.  He  does  not  so  much 
formulate  a  theory  concerning  the  nature  of  these  days 
as  he  demonstrates  the  inadequacy  of  six  days  to 
explain  the  facts  detailed  in  the  narrative  of  the 
inspired  writer.  His  opinion  regarding  the  simul- 
taniety  of  creation  is  rather  a  provisional  conjecture 
than  a  clearly  conceived  hypothesis  to  be  advocated  to 
the  exclusion  of  every  other  explanation.  A  careful 
examination  of  his  works  discloses  this  fact,  and  evinces 
beyond  cavil  that  it  was  not  succession  in  the  divine 
works  that  he  objected  to,  nor  the  idea  of  time  as  im- 
plied in  the  cosmogonic  days.  Neither  did  he  combat 
the  idea  of  days  understood  in  a  vague  sense  as  synon- 
ymous for  indefinite  periods  of  time.  It  was  the  the- 
ory that  the  Mosaic  days  were  days  of  twenty-four 
hours  each  that  he  repudiated,  and  which  he  found 
impossible  to  reconcile  with  either  the  facts  of  nature 

T/f  yovv  ix^^  vovv  olrjaErai  -p(l)T7}v  Kal  Sevrepav  /cat  rpiTT/v  TjfiEpav, 
eawipav  re  koI  Trpuiav  ;i;wp«f  T]7unv  yeyoverai,  Kal  ae'kijvTjQ  Kal  aarpov. 
TlEpl  apx^v,   lib.   iv.    16. 

^  Tuv  KTiafiaTcJV  nin^iv  tTrpov   tov  irkpov  npoyiyovev,  a7j'  adpouq  afta 
ndvTa,  TO.  yhrj  hi  ku'c  ru  avra  TvpoardyfiaTai  vneaTii,  Orat.  ii.,  Contra 

Arian,  n.  60. 
4 


50  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

or  the  words  of  the  Sacred  Text.  We  may  therefore 
say  of  Origen  what  the  Abbe  Motais  affirms  of  the 
school  of  which  the  erudite  Alexandrine  was  the  most 
illustrious  representative  :  "It  is  then  undeniable  that 
the  School  of  Alexandria  taught  in  reality  but  one 
thing — the  inadequateness  of  days  of  twenty-four 
hours  for  the  interpretation  of  Moses."* 

The  Alexandrine  theory,  as  we  now  know,  is  con- 
trary to  the  teachings  of  science.  Geology  establishes 
the  fact  that  the  creation,  or  at  least  the  ordering  of 
the  world,  was  not  simultaneous,  but  gradual  and  pro- 
gressive. The  earth  did  not  at  once  appear,  as  we 
behold  it  to-day,  divided  into  seas  and  continents, 
adorned  with  its  garment  of  verdure,  and  animated  by 
the  presence  of  man  and  a  multitude  of  animals  of 
every  species.  Life  was  manifested  only  by  degrees, 
as  in  the  creation  described  by  Moses,  with  whom 
geologists  are  in  essential  accord. 

"The  error  of  the  Alexandrines  proceeded  from  the 
defects  of  the  science  of  the  time.  Philo  attempted  to 
reconcile  Hellenism  with  the  teachings  of  Moses. 
Clement  and  Origen  endeavored  to  apply  the  philo- 
sophical spirit  to  the  data  of  a  Christian  revelation, 
and  to  demonstrate  that  Plato  and  his  pagan  compeers 
were  one  in  their  doctrines,  and  that,  furthermore,  in 
so  far  as  they  were  true,  they  were  one  with  the  Bible. 
They  essayed,  therefore,  to  fathom  the  dogmas  of 
revelation,  and  cause  them  to  be  respected  by  reason, 
by  corroborating  them  by  the  authority  of  the  most 
venerable  sages  of  antiquity,  and  by  making  all 
human  sciences  ancillary  to  theology.     The  end  was 

'  Origin c  du  Monde  d'apres  la  Tradition,  ouvrage  posthume 
du  Chanoine  Al.  Motais,  de  I'Oratoire  de  Rennes,  p.  127. 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  5 1 

grand  and  noble,  but  the  undertaking  was  difficult, 
and  even  the  genius  of  Origen  bent  under  the  load. 
The  masters  of  the  Christian  School  falsely  imagined 
that  there  were  pas'sages  in  Scripture  which  it  was 
impossible  to  defend  by  taking  them  literally,  and, 
hence,  in  order  to  explain  them,  they,  after  the 
example  of  Philo,  had  recourse  to  allegory."  ^ 

They  fancied,  among  other  things,  that  it  was 
impossible  to  accept  as  literally  true  the  biblical 
narrative  of  creation.  How  could  one,  for  instance, 
believe  that  God  was  obliged  to  interrupt  His  work 
six  different  times  before  completing  it  ?  How  recon- 
cile this  with  His  almighty  power?  The  naturalists 
of  that  period  never  suspected  that  our  globe  had 
assumed  its  actual  form  only  after  a  long  series  of 
revolutions.  Ignorant  of  the  truth  and  persuaded  that 
the  literal  sense  of  the  biblical  narrative  was  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  philosophy  of  their  epoch,  Clement 
and  Origen  concluded  that  the  first  chapter  of  Moses 
was  but  an  allegory,  and  they  interpreted  it  accord- 
ihgly.  Such  is  the  explanation  of  their  exegetical 
system.  But  suppose  their  environment  to  have  been 
different — suppose  them  to  be  living  in  our  day.  We 
may  be  certain  that  the  Clements  and  the  Origens 
would  hail  with  gladness  the  discoveries  of  geology, 
because  they  would  not  be  obliged  to  change  any  of 
their  fundamental  principles  regarding  the  accordance 
of  science  and  faith.  All  that  would  be  necessary 
would  be  to  give  these  principles  a  different  applica- 
tion.^ 

"^  La  Cosmogonie  mosaique,  par  I'Abbe  Vigouroux,  pp.  35,  36. 
^Op.  cit.,  p.  37. 


52  bible,  science,  and  faith. 

The  Literalism  of  the  Syrian  Schools. 

The  allegorism  of  the  Alexandrine  School — an  alle- 
gorism  that  was  frequently  of  the  most  extravagant 
character — was  not  long  in  provoking  opposition,  A 
reaction  was  inevitable,  and  it  came  from  the  schools 
of  Edessa,  Antioch,  and  Csesarea,  the  most  distin- 
guished exponents  of  which  were  respectively  St. 
Ephrem,  St.  John  Chrysostom,  and  St.   Basil. 

St.  Ephrem,  who  wrote  in  Syriac,  and  whose  writ- 
ings exercised  for  many  centuries  a  profoimd  influence 
on  the  thought  of  Western  Asia,  rejects  in  the  most 
positive  manner  the  Alexandrine  teaching  respecting 
simultaneous  creation.  "In  the  beginning,"  he 
declares,  "God  created  the  substance  of  heaven  and 
earth  ;  that  is,  of  a  heaven  and  an  earth  truly  existing 
in  nature.  Let  no  one,  therefore,  presume  to  look  for 
allegories  in  the  work  of  the  six  days.  It  is  not  per- 
mitted to  affirm  that  those  things  were  created 
instantly  which  the  Scripture  informs  us  appeared 
successively  and  on  separate  and  distinct  days.  It  is 
equally  forbidden  to  imagine  that  the  words  of  Scrip- 
ture are  names  which  do  not  designate  things,  or 
which  designate  things  other  than  those  that  the 
words  themselves  signify.  In  the  same  manner,  then, 
in  which  we  understand  by  the  heaven  and  earth 
which  were  at  first  created  a  true  heaven  and  a  true 
earth,  and  do  not  suppose  that  the  two  terms  signify 
something  else,  so  likewise  should  we  be  on  our  guard 
against  holding  to  be  without  meaning  the  terms 
which  express  the  arrangement  of  other  substances 
and  the  sequence  of  divers  works,  and  should^ boldly 
confess  that  the  nature  of  these  divers  beings  is  very 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  53 

accurately  represented  by  the  different  terms  by  which 
they  are  denominated."  '  According  to  him,  the  days 
of  Genesis  are  ordinary  days  of  twenty-four  hours 
each. 

But  a  very  remarkable  fact  in  St.  Ephrem's  view 
of  creation  is  that  he  maintains  that  the  first  verse  of 
Genesis  teaches  the  creation  ex  nihilo  of  elementary 
matter,  from  which  all  the  bodies  of  the  material 
universe,  earth,  sun,  moon,  stars,  were  subsequently 
formed.  We  shall  see  in  the  sequel  how  this  idea  was 
at  a  later  period  developed  by  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
and  how  it  forestalled  the  general  conception  of  Kant 
and  Laplace  concerning  the  nebular  hypothesis. 

St.  John  Chrysostom,  like  the  illustrious  deacon  of 
Edessa,  formally  repudiates  the  teaching  of  Origen 
and  his  school  regarding  simultaneous  creation.  God 
could,  he  is  willing  to  concede,  have  created  the  uni- 
verse in  the  twinkling  of  an  e}e,  but  He  did  not 
choose  to  do  so.  On  the  contrary,  He  deigned  to 
conform,  in  a  measure,  with  our  way  of  acting,  in 
order  that  we  might  the  more  readily  comprehend 
His  work.  He  wished,  m.oreover,  to  teach  us  that  this 
world  is  not  the  result  of  chance,  but  the  work  of  an 
all-wise  Providence,  who  "ordained  all  things  in 
measure  and  number  and  weight." 

Severien,  bishop  of  Gabales  in  Syria,  a  contem- 
porary of  St.  John  Chrysostom,  expresses  with  even 
greater  precision  than  the  golden -mouthed  orator  his 
views  regarding  the  Hexaemeron.  At  the  same  time 
he  distinctly  enunciates  the  opinion  of  St.  Eplirem 
respecting  the  creation  from  nothing  of  the  primitive 
matter  from  which  all  things  visible  were  afterward 

^Quoted  by  Motais,  op.  cit.,  p.  131  et  seq. 


54  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

fashioned.  "God,"  he  tells  ns,  "made  all  things  in 
the  space  of  six  days.  The  first  day,  however,  differs 
from  those  which  followed.  On  the  first  day  God 
produced  from  nothing — ix  ixq  oi^Ttov — and,  starting 
from  the  second  dav,  He  did  not  create  from  nothinsf, 
but  transformed  according  to  His  pleasure  that  which 
He  created  the  first  day.  .  .  .  God,  then,"  he  con- 
cludes, "  created  primal  matter — 5/ac  tiou  xrcff/jareov — on 
the  first  day,  and  during  the  subsequent  days  He  did 
no  more  than  give  form  and  beauty  to  what  He  had 
already  called  from  nothing."  ' 

'  Tr/v  juofxpuaiv  Kai  Ttjv  diaKoaiajGiv  ruv  K-'ianaTuv,  Orat.  I.  n.  3,  De 
iSIundi  Great.  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  in  the  narrative  of 
creation  given  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  the  word  Xi| 
(bara),  to  create  from  nothing,  occurs  only  three  times — viz.  in 
vs.  I,  21,  and  27.  In  the  first  instance  the  inspired  writer 
speaks  of  the  creation  of  the  inorganic  world  ;  that  is,  of  the 
elementarj'  matter  from  which,  according  to  St.  Ephrem  and 
his  school,  the  universe  is  evolved.  In  the  other  two  cases 
there  is  question  of  the  creation  of  animal  life  and  of  man. 

Not  only  in  the  record  of  creation,  however,  but  in  almost 
every  passage  of  Scripture  in  which  the  term  is  found,  the 
word  K"^3  (bara)  signifies  creation  ex  nihilo.  It  is  the  consecra- 
ted term,  therefore,  to  designate,  so  far  as  human  language  can 
express  such  an  idea,  the  creation  of  substance  from  nothing- 
ness, and  its  creation,  furthermore,  by  the  sole  act  of  the 
Almighty's  will. 

On  examining  the  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis  we  shall  find 
that  there  are  no  less  than  four  different  words  to  express  the 
creative  action  of  the  Deity.  Besides  K">3  (bara),  to  create  from 
nothing — creation  strictly  so  called — we  have  also  the  words 
nt^j;  (asah),  to  make  ;  iv;  (yasar),  to  form  ;  and  n33  (banah),  to 
build.  With  the  exception  of  the  three  cases  signalized  above 
— viz.  the  creation  of  matter,  the  creation  of  life,  and  the  crea- 
tion of  man — God  does  not,  properly  speaking,  create,  but 
merely  fashions,  His  creatures  from  pre-existing  material. 
Thus,  He  did  not  create,  but  "  made,  a  firmament "  from  mate- 


THE   MOSAIC   IIEXAEMERON.  55 

What  St.  Ephrem  taught  at  Edessa  and  Nisibus — 
because  he  was  alternately  the  head  of  both  these 
schools — and  what  St.  John  Chrysostom  maintained  at 
Antioch,  St.  Basil  defended  at  Csesarea.  The  master 
of  the  Schools  of  Edessa  and  Nisibus  had  laid  down 
the  canons  of  literalism,  and  the  chief  representatives 
of  the  Schools  of  Antioch  and  Csesarea  accepted  them 
with  but  slight  modifications.  The  basis  of  St. 
Ephrem' s  system  of  interpretation  may  be  summed  up 
in  two  propositions  :  First,  that  the  things  named  by 
Moses  have  a  real  existence;  and,  secondly,  that  the 
Genesiac  days  are  ordinary  days  of  twenty-four  hours. 

To  these  canons  of  St.  Ephrem,  St.  Basil  cordially 
subscribes.  Nay  more:  in  his  defence  of  literalism  he 
is  disposed  to  go  even  farther  than  had  any  of  his  pre- 
decessors. Origen  had  pushed  allegorism  to  its  extreme 
limit.  He  saw  a  hidden  meaning  in  the  simplest  dec- 
larations of  Scripture.  According  to  his  method  of 
interpretation,  what  he  called  the  spiritual  or  mystical 
sense  came  first;  the  literal  sense — he  named  it  the 
"  corporeal  sense  " — was  in  most  cases  but  secondary. 

rial  which  He  had  already  brought  from  nothing-ness  ;  sim- 
ilarly, He  did  not  create,  but  "  He  made,  two  great  lights,"  and 
"He  made  the  beasts  of  the  field  according  to  their  kinds  ;" 
He  ''formed  ont  of  the  ground  all  the  beasts  of  the  earth  ;" 
and  He  ''built  the  rib  which  He  took  from  Adam  into  a 
woman." 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  in  this  connection  that  the  prophet 
Isaias  uses  the  first  three  of  the  above  words  in  a  single  verse. 
In  chapter  xliii.  v.  7  it  is  written  :  "And  every  one  that  calleth 
upon  my  name,  I  have  created  him  for  my  glory,  I  have 
formed  him  and  made  him." 

For  a  full  exposition  of  X'>3  (bard),  as  meaning  to  create  in 
the  strict  acceptation  of  the  term,  see  Gesenius'  s  Thesaurus 
Philologicus,  pp.  235,  236. 


56  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

But  if  Origen  erred  by  carrying  allegorism  too  far,  St. 
Basil,  in  his  efforts  to  counteract  the  tendency  of  the 
illustrious  Alexandrine's  teachings,  fell  into  an  anal- 
ogous error  by  laying  too  much  stress  on  the  literal 
method.  In  his  zeal  to  conserve  the  true  meaning  of 
the  words  of  the  Sacred  Text  he  rejected  allegory 
entirely,  and  thus  often  confounded  the  proper  sense, 
in  which  the  words  are  to  be  taken  tit  sonajit^  with 
their  figurative  sense,  which,  in  the  mind  of  the 
author,  gives  their  true  literal  meaning.  In  his  ninth 
homily  on  the  Hexaemeron  he  enunciates  distinctly 
the  principles  of  exegesis  by  which  he  is  guided,  "I 
know,"  he  tells  us,  "the  laws  of  allegory,  although  I 
am  not  their  author,  but  have  found  them  in  the  works 
of  others.  Those  who  do  not  follew  the  common  inter- 
pretation of  the  Scriptures  do  not  call  '  water '  water. 
They  see  in  this  word  something  entirely  different. 
And  in  like  manner  they  give  a  fantastical  meaning  to 
the  words  'plants'  and  'fishes.'  And  yet  more.  The 
generation  of  reptiles  and  other  creatures  becomes, 
according  to  their  arbitrary  teaching,  a  subject  of  alle- 
gory. In  this  they  resemble  those  who  give  to  the 
objects  of  their  dreams  a  signification  which  is  in 
accordance  with  their  tastes  or  desires.  As  for  myself, 
I  call  '  a  plant '  a  plant,  and  I  interpret  the  words 
'plant,'  'fish,'  'wild  animals,'  and  'flocks'  as  I  find 
them  in  the  Scripture."  He  gives  to  these  words 
their  proper,  literal  meaning,  because  Moses  employs 
the  words  ordinarily  used  for  designating  these  objects. 
In  a  similar  manner,  because  the  inspired  writer 
employs  the  word  "day"  in  his  narrative,  he  insists 
on  attributing  to  it  the  primary  signification  of  a 
period  of  twenty-four  hours.  ^  In  a  word,  he  concludes, 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  57 

though  falsely  and  illogically,  that  because  some  of 
the  words  are  to  be  understood  in  their  plain,  obvious 
sense,  they  are  all  to  be  so  interpreted.  ,  What  he 
found  reprehensible  in  Origen — the  application  of  a 
figurative  sense  to  a  whole  narrative  because  some  of 
the  words  of  this  narrative  were  figurative — is  pre- 
cisely similar  to  what  we  find  fault  with  in  his  too 
close  adherence  to  literalism.  Because  some  of  the 
words  of  the  Genesiac  narrative  are  undoubtedly  to  be 
taken  in  their  proper  and  simple  signification,  he 
infers  that  all  are  to  be  thus  understood — that  all  fig- 
ures are  to  be  rejected  even  when  the  words  of  the  con- 
text plainly  indicate,  as  in  some  of  the  passages  of  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis,  that  the  figurative  sense  of 
the  words  is  in  reality  the  only  one  which  can  truly 
give  the  literal  sense  of  their  author. 

The  Syrian  Schools,  therefore,  as  distinguished  from 
the  School  of  Alexandria,  contend  that  the  true  sense 
of  Holy  Writ  is  to  be  found  by  a  strict  interpretation 
of  the  letter  of  the  text,  without,  however,  excluding 
entirely  all  allegory.  But  with  them,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  figurative  sense  is  always  secondary.  They 
escaped,  indeed,  the  reefs  encountered  by  Origen  and 
his  followers,  but  they  ran  foul  of  other  obstacles 
equally  perilous.  In  their  anxiety  to  preserve  intact 
the  word  of  God  they  fell  into  numerous  errors  in 
matters  of  science  from  which  the  Alexandrine  School 
escaped.  But  we  need  not  go  far  to  seek  the  reason 
for  such  lapses  into  error.  The  natural  and  physical 
sciences  did  not  receive  the  attention  in  Syria  that  was 
given  them  in  Egypt's  brilliant  capital.  The  Doctors 
of  Edessa  and  Nisibus  and  Antioch  did  not  have  to 
meet  the  objections  proposed  to  the  masters  of  the 


58  BIBLE,  SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

Christian  School  of  Alexandria  by  the  keenest  expo- 
nents of  Neo-Platonisni  and  Gnosticism.  They  had 
not  to  ward  off  shafts  of  sarcasm  and  ridicnle  like 
those  which  were  so  persistently  directed  against 
Origen  by  that  precursor  and  prototype  of  Voltaire — 
Celsus,  one  of  the  bitterest  and  keenest  opponents  of 
the  Christian  name.  And  it  was  because  they  were 
thus  free  from  the  attacks  of  anti-Christian  philosophy 
that  they  were  guilty  of  blunders  in  science  which 
they  would  not  otherwise  have  committed.  Literal- 
ism, no  doubt,  rendered  good  service  to  the  cause  of 
exegesis,  but  its  too  exclusive  adoption  was  the  source 
of  many  errors  that  were  prejudicial  to  the  cause  of 
both  Scripture  and  science. 

A  couple  of  instances  in  point  will  make  my  mean- 
ing clearer. 

St.  John  Chrysostom,  interpreting  literally  the  words 
of  the  Psalmist,  "Who  established  the  earth  above  the 
waters,"  maintains  that  the  earth  actually  reposes  on 
the  waters.  He  fails  to  distinguish  the  metaphorical 
from  the  proper  sense  of  the  words,  and  mistakes  a 
figurative  statement  for  a  positive  declaration  of 
science. 

Again,  by  a  forced  interpretation  of  the  words  of 
Isaias,  "He  that  stretcheth  out  the  heavens  as  noth- 
ing, and.  spreadeth  them  out  as  a  tent  to  dwell  in," 
the  Egyptian  monk,  Cosmas  Indicopleustes,  imagined 
that  the  universe  had  the  form  of  a  tent  or  of  the  tab- 
ernacle built  by  Moses  in  the  wilderness,  and  that  the 
earth  is  a  rectangular  plane  twice  as  long  as  it  is  broad 
and  enveloped  on  all  sides  by  the  heavens  or  firmament. 

No  better  example  could  be  cited  of  the  danger  of 
insisting  on  a  too  literal  interpretation  of  Scripture, 


THE   MOSAIC   IIEXAEMERON.  59 

especially  in  matters  that  evidently  come  within  the 
purview  of  science.  If  allegorism  is  fraught  with 
danger  when  pushed  too  far,  literalism  is  equally  so 
when  accepted  as  the  chief,  if  not  sole,  norm  of  bib- 
lical interpretation- 


CHAPTER  III. 

ST.  GREGORY  OF  NYSSA  AND    THE    NEBULAR  HYPOTH- 
ESIS. 

Via  Media  of  St,  Gregory  of  Nyssa. 

AS  a  consequence  of  the  failure  of  literalism  and 
-^J^  allegorisui  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  critics  and  ex- 
plain numerous  difficulties  in  the  Mosaic  account  of 
creation — not  to  speak  of  other  parts  of  the  Bible — it 
soon  became  apparent  that  some  other  system  of  inter- 
pretation was  required  that  would  not  be  open  to  the 
defects  inherent  in  the  systems  of  Alexandria  and 
Syria.  A  compromise  was  needed — a  sort  of  via 
media — which  would  evade  what  was  objectionable 
in  the  older  schools,  while  it  retained  all  that  was 
good  and  consonant  with  the  requirements  of  science 
and  biblical  criticism. 

The  first  one  to  broach  this  compromise  and  to  pave 
the  way  for  a  via  media  was  the  illustrious  brother 
of  St.  Basil,  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  St.  Basil,  by  the 
very  brilliance  and  ardor  of  his  defence  of  the  literal 
school,  had  precipitated  a  reaction  which  was  as  inev- 
itable as  was  that  which  followed  the  allegorism  of 
Origen.  For  Caesarea,  where  the  great  bishop  gave 
his  exposition  of  the  Hexaemeron,  like  Alexandria, 
was,  as  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  tells  us,  "a  metropolis 
of  arts  and  sciences."  In  Caesarea,  as  in  Alexandria, 
the  Bible  and  the  dogmas  of  Christianity  were  the 
60 


THE   MOSAIC    HEXAEMERON.  6 1 

objects  of  the  constant  attacks  of  pagan  philosophy 
and  Manichsean  dualism.  But  no  question,  probably, 
excited  greater  interest  or  provoked  more  discussion 
than  that  respecting  the  origin  of  the  world.  To  the 
Genesiac  account  of  the  unity  of  origin  of  all  things 
the  Manichseans  opposed  their  system  of  dualism, 
while  Julian  the  Apostate  labored  with  demoniac  zeal 
and  persistency  to  prove  that  the  cosmogony  of  Plato 
was  superior  to  that  of  Moses.  All  the  resources  of 
Greek  science  were  marshalled  against  the  Christian 
citadel ;  every  species  of  stratagem  was  resorted  to  and 
every  form  of  assault  tried,  but  in  vain.  The  Chris- 
tian defences  remained  impregnable,  and  the  soldiers 
of  the  Crucified  came  forth  from  the  conflict  not  only 
unscathed,  but  stronger  than  they  had  ever  been  be- 
fore, and  better  prepared  to  fight  new  battles  and 
achieve  other  and  more  glorious  triumphs. 

A  characteristic  of  the  great  Cappadocian  Doctors  that 
we  must  not  lose  sight  of  was  their  great  love  of  science. 
They  were  eminent  not  only  for  their  vast  knowledge 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  but  also  for  their  accurate 
acquaintance  with  all  the  branches  of  profane  science 
as  taught  in  the  best  schools  of  their  time.  Indeed, 
in  the  Hexaemeron  of  St.  Basil  we  have,  according  to 
the  Abbe  Bayle,  a  resume  of  all  that  was  known  in 
the  illustrious  prelate's  day  respecting  astronomy, 
physics,  and  natural  history.  While  studying  at 
Athens  he  devoted  special  attention  to  profane  sci- 
ence, and  made  a  critical  examination  of  the  diverse 
systems  of  cosmogony  as  taught  by  the  various  schools 
of  Greek  philosophy.  According  to  all  accounts,  he 
was  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  his  century,  and 
if  we  detect  errors  of  science  in  his  exegesis,  we  must 


62  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

attribute  them  to  the  defective  knowledge  of  his  age — 
wheu  all  the  inductive  sciences  were  still  in  an  in- 
choate state — rather  than  to  an  ignorance  on  his  part 
of  any  of  the  positive  knowledge  possessed  by  his  con- 
temporaries. For  we  must  not  forget  that  in  the  time 
of  the  great  bishop  of  Caesarea  «-/r/^rz  reasoning,  rather 
than  observation  and  experiment,  was  appealed  to  to 
explain  the  origin  and  nature  of  the  visible  universe. 
Theory  and  speculation,  as  a  consequence,  often  took 
the  place  of  real  science,  and  errors  innumerable  were 
the  inevitable  result. 

Such  being  the  case,  far  from  finding  fault  with  the 
mistakes  in  science  which  we  observe  in  the  works  of 
the  early  Christian  exegetists,  we  should  rather  be 
surprised  that  the  errors  are  so  few.  They  were  cer- 
tainly not  more  numerous,  nor  more  serious,  than 
those  found  in  the  works  of  the  ablest  of  the  pro- 
fessional exponents  of  the  profane  science  of  the 
period.  It  were  foolish  to  expect  them  to  know  more 
about  geography  than  Eratosthenes  and  Strabo  and 
Pomponius  Mela,  who  had  made  a  life-study  of  the 
subject;  or  to  demand  of  them  a  more  accurate  know- 
ledge of  astronomy  than  was  possessed  by  Hipparchus 
or  Ptolemy;  or  to  suppose  that  they  should  have  a 
more  precise  and  a  more  extended  acquaintance  with 
physics  and  natural  history  than  had  Aristotle  or 
Pliny.  Such  an  exaction  would  be  the  height  of 
unreason.  As  well  might  we  find  fault  wnth  them 
for  not  being  so  well  versed  in  physics  as  Ampere  or 
Maxwell,  or  reproach  them  for  knowing  less  of  astron- 
omy than  Leverrier  or  Father  Secchi,  and  less  of 
geography  than  Humboldt,  Malte-Brun,  or  Carl  Ritter. 
— men  whose  science  was  based  on  the  experiments 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  63 

and  observations  of  thousands  of  investigators  and  on 
the  accumnlated  knowledge  of  weUnigh  twenty  cen- 
turies. 

Nebular  Hypothesis  of  St.  Gregory. 

But  we  may  go  yet  further.  Not  only  were  the  ex- 
egetists  I  have  named,  especially  those  of  Alexandria 
and  Csesarea,  imbued  with  a  love  of  science  and  fully 
abreast  with  every  advance  of  scientific  research,  but 
they  were  the  first  to  propose  and  develop  a  true  theory 
of  the  origin  of  the  world,  and  to  lay  the  foundations 
of  cosmogonic  doctrines  that  are  usually  credited  to 
investigators  of  a  much  later  epoch.  A  most  striking 
illustration  of  the  truth  of  this  statement  is  found  in 
that  marvel  of  exegesis — the  Hcxaemeron  of  St.  Greg- 
ory of  Nyssa — wherein  is  developed,  in  unequivocal 
terms,  the  same  hypothesis  that  has  so  long  been  re- 
garded as  the  special  glory  of  the  Systeme  dii  Monde 
of  Laplace. 

St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  who  was  the  youngest  brother 
of  St.  Basil,  was  induced  to  write  his  great  work  by  an 
elder  brother,  Peter,  the  bishop  of  Sebaste,  who  became 
alarmed  at  the  criticisms  that  were  constantly  made 
on  the  cosmogonic  views  of  the  eloquent  bishop  of 
Csesarea.  Gregory  was  inferior  to  Basil  in  eloquence 
and  erudition,  but  surpassed  him  in  scientific  method 
and  philosophic  spirit.  His  prime,  if  not  his  sole,  in- 
tention, when  he  took  up  his  pen  and  engaged  in  the 
controversy  was  to  defend  his  brother  from  the  attacks 
of  his  critics.  But  he  soon  found  himself,  almost  un- 
consciously and  against  his  own  will,  forced  to  aban- 
don  this  idea.     He  discovered  that  the   cosmoeonal 


6/\.  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

views  of  Basil  could  no  longer  withstand  the  onslaughts 
of  the  critical  Greeks,  who  had  carefully  followed  them 
from  beginning  to  end. 

But  he  would  never  admit  that  there  was  any  funda- 
mental difference  between  his  teaching  and  that  of  his 
distinguished  brother.  He  maintained  that  Basil, 
speaking  in  a  large  church  to  a  numerous  audience, 
was  obliged  to  adapt  his  language  to  the  intelligence 
of  his  hearers,  but  that  in  spite  of  his  precautions  he 
was  often  misunderstood.  Gregory's  purpose,  then, 
was  to  explain  the  views  of  his  brother,  and  not  to 
contradict  them  or  proclaim  them  untenable.  But, 
although  he  disavows  any  intention  of  advocating 
aught  that  was  different  from  what  his  brother  had 
taught,  and  although  he  explicitly  declares  that  his 
sole  purpose  is  to  graft  a  small  shoot  on  the  noble  tree 
of  his  master,  he  does,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  teach  doc- 
trines essentially  different,  and  promulgates  a  theory 
of  cosmogony  that  not  only  makes  him  the  founder 
of  a  new  school  of  exegesis,  but  which  evinces  that 
he  was  one  of  the  clearest  and  boldest  thinkers  that 
the  world  has  ever  known. 

St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  like  his  brother  St.  Basil  and 
his  illustrious  friend  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  accepted 
the  Alexandrine  doctrine  of  simultaneous  creation. 
But  he  succeeded  better  than  either  his  brother  or  his 
friend  in  keeping  to  the  zna  media  between  the  Alex- 
andrines on  the  one  hand  and  the  Syrians  on  the 
other.  He  avoids  the  excessive  allegorism  of  the 
former  as  well  as  the  exaggerated  literalism  of  the 
latter.  Like  Origen  and  Athanasius,  he  admits  the 
name  and  idea  of  simultaneous  creation,  but  rejects 
the  purely  symbolic  explanation  of  the  first  chapter  of 


THE    MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  65 

Genesis  which  was  given  such  vogue  by  Philo.  With 
the  Syrians  he  distinguishes  six  real  days  in  the  work 
of  creation,  but,  unlike  them,  he  is  not  a  slave  to  the 
letter  of  the  Sacred  Text.  His  method  is  more  criti- 
cal, and  he  acknowledges  on  all  occasions  the  service 
that  profane  science  may  render  to  scriptural  exegesis/ 
According  to  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  the  words  "In 
the  beofinniu":  God  created  heaven  and  earth"  do  not 
refer  to  the  creation  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  as 
we  now  behold  them,  and  still  less  do  they  signify  the 
creation  of  the  creatures — plants,  animals,  and  man — 
that  inhabit  the  earth.  They  refer  rather  to  the  cre- 
ation from  nothing  of  the  primitive  cosmic  matter, 
from  which  all  forms  of  matter,  organic  and  inorganic, 
were  subsequently  fashioned.  In  modern  phraseology 
all  the  material  universe  was  at  first  in  a  gaseous  or 
nebulous  condition,  and  from  this  nebulous  matter  all 
the  heavenly  bodies,  sun,  moon,  stars,  planets,  were  in 
course  of  time  evolved.  The  saint  finds  a  warrant  for 
this  intrepretation  in  the  words  of  Genesis  itself,  for, 
according  to  the  inspired  writer,  the  earth  after  the 
first  creative  act  was  "void  and  empty,"  or,  as  the 
Septuagint  has  it,-  "invisible  and  discomposed."^ 

^  Cf.  F.  Vigouroux,  op.  cit.,  p.  88. 

"  The  worcLs  of  the  Vulgate  are  inanis  et  vacua.  The  Sep- 
tuagint, however,  employs  terms  that  are  more  expressive,  and 
which  are  at  the  same  time  in  perfect  accord  with  the  teaching 
of  modern  science  regarding  the  origin  of  the  world.  The 
words  used  by  The  Seventy  are  aoparoq  kcu  (iKaraffKcv-nt; — invisi- 
bilis  et  incornposita — and  indicate  a  condition  of  things  implied 
by  the  word  chaos  of  the  Greek  philosophers,  the  "  riidis  iudi- 
gestaqne  moles''  of  the  Roman  poet,  and  b}-  the  Hebrew  words 
.inJi  "^Tyi^,  tohou  vdbdIwUy  which  are  often  rendered  by  the 
words  solitudo  et  inanitas. 
5 


66  BIBLE,    SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

In    the   beginning,    then,    all    things   were   created 
potentially  rather  than    in  act;    they  were  contained 
naturally  or  in  germ  in  the  invisible  and  unformed 
matter  that  came  forth  from  nothing  in  response  to  the 
divine  fiat.     The  first  sentence  of  Genesis  tells  us  of 
creation  properly  so  called — the  opus  creaiionis.     That 
which  follows  refers  to  the  formation,  from  pre-exist- 
ing matter,  of  all  the  bodies  of  the  universe.     This  is 
what  theologians  call  the  opus  formationis^  and  what 
modern  scientists  denominate  development,  or  evolution. 
\      In  the  beginning,  therefore,  according  to  St.  Greg- 
/  ory  of  Nyssa,  all  was  in  a  chaotic  or  nebulous  state. 
;  But  it  did  not  remain  so,  because  the  Almighty  put  it 
,  under  the  action  of  certain  physical  laws  by  virtue  of 
which  it  was  to  go  through  that  long  cycle  of  changes 
of  which  science  speaks,  and  about  the  existence  of 
I  which  there  can,  it  seems,  no  longer  be  any  reasonable 
I  doubt. 

The  manner  in  which  the  saint  expresses  himself 
when  treating  of  this  subject  is,  considering  the  scien- 
tific knowledge  of  his  time,  simply  marvellous.  He 
seems  to  have  had  an  intuitive  knowledge  of  what 
could  not  then  be  demonstrated,  and  of  what  could  be 
known  only  after  the  revelations  of  modern  geology 
and  astronomy.  In  this  respect  he  often  reminds  one 
of  Aristotle,  who  had  intuitions  of  certain  of  the  laws 
and  processes  of  nature  of  which  there  was  no  experi- 
mental evidence  until  more  than  two  thousand  years 
)  after  he  had  given  expression  to  his  opinions. 

After  the  primitive  nebulous  matter  of  the  cosmos 
\  was  created,  certain  molecules,  St.  Gregory  teaches, 
I  began,  under  the  influence  of  attraction,  to  unite  with 
\  other  molecules  and  to  form  separate  masses  of  matter. 
J 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAE.MERON.  6/ 

In  the  course  of  time  these  masses  of  matter,  rotating 
on  their  axes,  gave  off  similar  masses,  which  assumed 
a  spherical  form.  In  this  wise  were  produced  the  sun 
and  moon,  stars  and  planets. 

The  various  heavenly  bodies  resulting  from  the  con- 
densation of  the  primitive  nebulae  that  filled  all  space 
exhibited,  as  St.  Gregory  declares,  many  and  striking 
differences.  They  differed  in  size,  weight,  luminosity, 
in  their  relative  distances  from  their  centres  of  attrac- 
tion, and  in  the  orbits  which  they  describe  with  such 
unerring  precision  and  harmony. 

But  in  this  brilliant  conception,  in  which  he  could 
but  divine  what  Laplace  and  his  compeers  have  made 
all  but  certain,  St.  Gregory  recognized  the  existence 
of  laws  which  he  was  unable  to  detect,  much  less  com- 
prehend. These  were  the  laws  made  known  long  ages 
afterward  by  the  investigations  of  Kepler,  Newton, 
and  Plateau,  and  the  laws  of  chemical  affinity  which 
have  thrown  such  a  flood  of  light  on  the  secret  opera- 
tions of  nature.  But  in  spite  of  its  many  defects,  due 
to  the  ignorance  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived,  his  Hexa- 
emcron  will  ever  remain  a  noble  specimen  of  learning 
and  philosophical  acumen,  and  his  theory  of  the  for- 
mation of  the  world  must  always  be  regarded  as  a 
marvel  of  scientific  divination  that  is  unsurpassed  by 
even  the  boldest  conceptions  of  that  master-intellect 
of  the  world — Aristotle.  No  exegetist  has  ever  been 
more  happy  in  the  employment  of  the  scientific  method; 
no  one  has  ever  had  a  keener  appreciation  of  the  reign 
of  law  and  order  which  obtains  in  the  universe;  no  one 
has  ever  realized  more  thoroughly  that  the  cosmos,  as 
we  now  see  it,  far  from  being  the  work  of  chance  or 
the  result  of  a  series  of  divine  interventions,  is  the  out- 


I 

J 


68  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

come  of  a  gradual  evolution  of  that  primordial  matter 
which  God  created  in  the  beginning,  which  He  then 
put  under  what  we  call  the  laws  of  nature,  and  which 
He  still  conserves  by  His  providence.  Excepting  un- 
important details,  the  general  tenor  of  his  cosmogony 
is  to-day  as  consonant  with  the  teachings  of  Scripture 
and  the  latest  conclusions  of  science  as  is  that  of  an 
interpreter  of  our  own  century.  He  is  conscious  of 
the  difficulty  of  making  the  days  of  Genesis  days  of 
twenty-four  hours,  as  did  his  brother  and  the  expo- 
nents of  the  literal  school  generally,  but  out  of  respect 
for  those  whom  he  held  in  such  great  reverence  he 
appears  to  have  been  unwilling  to  grapple  with  the 
difficulty  directly,  much  less  to  propound  a  theory 
that  could  be  construed  as  a  contradiction  of  the 
doctrine  of  St.  Basil,  whom  he  had  it  in  purpose  to 
explain  and  defend.  But,  notwithstanding  his  deep 
reverence  for  his  brother  and  the  delicacy  of  feeling 
he  exhibits  toward  him  throughout  his  masterly  work 
on  Genesis,  one  cannot  but  recognize  that  he  considered 
the  teachings  of  the  literal  school  inadequate  to  ex- 
plain the  declarations  of  Moses,  and  that  a  new  inter- 
pretation— the  one  he  himself  so  modestly  suggests — 
is  the  only  one  which  can  afford  a  logical  answer  to 
the  difficulties  raised,  and  which  at  the  same  time  har- 
monizes with  both  the  words  of  the  Sacred  Text  and 
r'with  the  teachings  of  profane  science.  His  teaching 
regarding  the  evolution  of  the  universe  under  the  ac- 
tion of  physical  laws,  and  the  gradual  formation  of  the 
earth,  and  the  successive  production  and  development 
of  the  various  creatures  which  inhabit  it,  leaves  us  in  no 
doubt  as  to  his  theory  of  cosmogony,  nor  as  to  the  fact 
that  he  is  in  all  justice  to  be  regarded  as  the  father  and 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAiiMERON.  69 

founder  of  the  modern  school  of  scriptural  interpre- 
tation, as  well  as  the  real  originator  of  the  nebular 
hypothesis^  that  is  so  exclusively  attributed  to  mod- 
ern thinkers,  particularly  Kant,  Herschel,  and  Laplace. 

*  The  materialistic  cosmologists  of  the  Ionic  Schools,  espe- 
cially Thales,  Anaximander,  and  Anaximenes,  who  are  some- 
times credited  with  originating  the  nebular  hypothesis,  had 
but  a  vague  perception  of  its  truth. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

57:  augustine  and  evolution. 

Exegesis,  Old  and  New. — St.  Augustine  and 
Eclecticism. 

BUT  wonderful  as  were  the  scientific  intuitions  of  St. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  they  were  eclipsed  by  those  of 
the  illustrious  Latin  Doctor,  St.  Augustine.  Both  men 
were  remarkable  for  the  keenness  of  their  perceptions 
and  for  the  logical  manner  in  which  they  treated  every 
question  that  was  presented  them  for  discussion.  Both 
had  a  complete  acquaintance  with  the  profane  sciences 
as  taught  in  their  day,  and  recognized  the  assistance  a 
knowledge  of  science  may  render  the  student  of  Scrip- 
ture. Both,  too,  excelled  in  the  scientific  and  philo- 
sophic method,  which  they  employed  with  singular 
success  in  the  elucidation  of  controverted  biblical 
topics,  and  possessed  a  critical  faculty  which  was  far 
superior  to  that  observable  in  any  of  their  contempo- 
raries. But,  distinguished  as  he  was  among  the  exege- 
tists  of  his  day,  and  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he 
vios  facile princeps  among  the  intellectual  giants  of  his 
time  and  race,  the  bishop  of  Nyssa  had  neither  the 
genius  nor  the  erudition  nor  the  comprehensiveness  of 
view  that  we  admire  in  the  prelate  of  Hippo.  In  the 
great  African  doctor  we  seem  to  have  combined  the 
searching  and  potent  dialectics  of  Plato,  the  profound 
scientific  conceptions  of  Aristotle,  the  learning  and 
70 


THE    MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  71 

versatility  of  Origen,  the  grace  and  eloquence  of  Basil 
and  Chrysostoni.  Whether  we  regard  him  as  philos- 
opher, theologian,  or  exegetist;  as  confuting  Arians, 
Pelagians,  and  Manichaeans;  or  as  vindicating  the  faith 
of  the  Gospel  against  paganism ;  or  grappling  with  the 
difficult  and  obscure  questions  of  Mosaic  cosmogony; 
or  fixing,  with  long  and  steadfast  gaze,  his  eagle  eye 
on  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity, — the  Doctor  of  Grace  is 
ever  admirable,  at  once  the  glory  of  the  Church  and 
the  master  of  the  ages. 

In  scriptural  exegesis  he  is  the  author  of  the  system 
usually  known  as  eclecticism^  a  system  that  was  based 
in  some  measure  on  the  teachings  both  of  the  Alex- 
andrine and  Syrian  Schools.  Like  St.  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  he  saw  the  necessity  of  a  via  media  between 
the  systems  advocated  by  Origen  and  Ephrem,  but, 
unlike  him,  he  was  more  positive  in  his  repudiation 
of  the  insufficiency  of  literalism  and  in  his  condemna- 
tion of  the  extravagances  of  allegorism.  He  scruti- 
nized both  systems  closely,  and  exhibited  in  the  most 
luminous  manner  the  merits  and  defects  of  each.  At 
one  time  he  was  disposed  to  take  refuge  in  the  simul- 
taneity of  the  Alexandrines  ;  at  another  he  sought 
light  in  the  interpretations  of  their  opponents  at 
Edessa  and  Csesarea.  He  critically  examined,  one  by 
one,  the  theories  of  his  predecessors  and  found  them 
wanting.  He  evolved  theories  of  his  own  until  they 
numbered  more  than  half  a  score,  but  without  any 
satisfactory  result.  Indeed,  the  Mosaic  Hexaemeron 
seemed  to  possess  a  special  fascination  for  him,  and 
the  problems  which  it  raised  appeared  to  haunt  him 
from  the  time  of  his  conversion  until  the  end  of  his 
life.      He  returns  to  them  over  and  over,   and  takes 


72  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

them  lip  repeatedly  as  if  for  the  first  time.  He  rejects 
methods  that  he  had  once  approved,  and  casts  aside  as 
untenable  theories  which  he  himself  had  most  strongly 
snpported.  At  one  time  he  appears  to  be  a  disciple  of 
Origen  and  Clement,  at  another  a  pupil  of  Ephrem 
and  Basil.  His  is  the  intellect  of  genius  groping  in 
darkness  and  essaying  the  impossible  in  the  region  of 
mystery.  We  see  this  whenever  the  question  of  crea- 
tion is  mooted — in  his  "Confessions"  and  in  his 
"City  of  God;"  in  his  unfinished  work  on  Genesis, 
and  in  his  "  Retractions,"  and  his  crowning  treatise 
on  the  subject — the  most  complete  antiquity  has  left 
us  on  creation — the  twelve  books  entitled  De  Genesi 
ad  Litterajn. 

Meaning  of  the  Word  "Day." 

During  the  twenty-five  best  years  of  his  life  the  first 
two  chapters  of  Genesis  were  continually  before  the 
saint's  mind.  What  did  IMoses  mean  by  the  words 
"days"?  he  asks  again  and  again  in  accents  of 
mingled  pathos  and  despair.  How  could  there  be 
days  in  the  ordinary  acceptation  of  the  word  before 
the  sun  was  created  on  the  fourth  day  ?  Were  not 
the  first  three  days  mentioned  by  Moses  periods  of 
time  rather  than  ordinary  days  of  twenty-four  hours 
,each?  And  what  about  the  seventh  day — a  day  that 
)had  no  evening — a  day,  therefore,  that  still  endures? 
And  yet  another  difficulty  :  How  explain,  according  to 
the  laws  of  nature,  which  are  the  laws  of  God,  the 
production  and  development  of  the  various  forms 
of  plant  and  animal  life  in  the  short  period  of  six 
ordinary  days? 


THE   MOSAIC    HEXAEMERON.  73 

-The  idea  that  God  during  the  Genesiac  days  ope- 
rated in  a   manner  different   from   that  which  subse- 
quently characterized  His  providence  ;   that  the  laws 
which  governed  the  material  universe  were  not  the 
same  then  as   they  were   afterward  ;    that  the  Hexa- 
emeron  was  distinguished  by  a  series  of  miracles  and  a 
succession   of  specific   creations,    rather   than  by  the 
1  reign  of  law  that  the  Creator  Himself  had  imposed  on 
(  matter,  and  by  which  it  was  endowed  with  the  power 
j  of  gradual  evolution  and  differentiation, — seemed  so 
^  repugnant  to  the  keen  and  logical  intellect  of  Augus- 
tine  that  he  could    never  bring  himself  to  adopt  it, 
)  much  less  give  it  his  support. 

That  the  Almighty  should  interrupt  his  work  after 
having  commenced  it,  that  He  should  take  it  up  six 
several  times  before  completing  it,  was  to  his  mind  as 
inconsistent  with  just  ideas  of  divine  power  and  wis- 
dom as  it  was  to  that  of  Origen.  What  he  knew  of 
the  uniformity  of  the  laws  of  nature  contradicted  such 
an  interpretation,  and  the  more  he  studied  the  Sacred 
Text  the  less  warrant  there  seemed  to  be  for  i.t  in  the 
^  words  of  the  inspired  writer.  (He  does  not  deny  the 
miraculous.  Far  from  it.  But  he  does  not  favor  the 
invoking  the  aid  of  miracles  without  necessity  or  ap- 
pealing to  them  in  every  difficulty  of  interpretation, 
and  thus  making  them  serve  the  purpose  of  a  Detis  ex 
machiud.  J 

In  his  "  Confessions "  •  St.  Augustine  gives  us  an 
idea  of  the  special  attraction  which  the  Hebrew  cos- 
mogony always  possessed  for  him.  "  Let  me  hear  and 
understand,"  he  prays,  "how  in  the  beginning  Thou 
didst  make  the  heaven  and  the  earth.     Moses  wrote 

^  Book  xi.  cap.  iii. 


74  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

this;  he  wrote  and  departed — passed  hence  from  Thee 
to  Thee.  Nor  now  is  he  before  nie,  for  if  he  were  I 
would  hold  him  and  ask  him,  and  would  adjure  him 
by  Thee  that  he  would  open  unto  me  these  things, 
and  I  would  lend  the  ears  of  my  body  to  the  sounds 
bursting  from  his  mouth.  .  .  .  As,  then,  I  cannot 
inquire  of  him,  I  beseech  Thee — Thee,  O  Truth,  full 
of  whom  he  spoke  truth — Thee,  my  God,  I  beseech, 
forgive  my  sins;  and  do  Thou,  who  didst  give  to  that 
Thy  servant  to  speak  these  things,  grant  to  me  also  to 
understand  them." 

The  meaning  of  .the  word  "day"  was  as  great  an 
enigma  to  him  as  it  was  to  Origen  and  his  school.  His 
reason  revolts  at  the  idea  of  regarding  the  days  of 
Genesis  as  ordinary  days  of  twenty-four  hours.  He  is 
convinced  that  they  cannot  be  true  "solar  days" — 
that  they  are  not  produced  by  the  revolution  of  the 
heavenly  bodies.  They  must,  therefore,  be  "entirely 
different  from  the  days  that  compose  our  weeks" — "of 
a  character  quite  extraordinary  and  to  us  unknown." 

"What  are  these  days?"  he  inquires  in  his  great 
work  De  Civitate  Dei}  "It  is  very  difficult,  if  not 
impossible,  to  conceive,  much  less  to  declare  in  words.  ^ 
The  days  which  we  know  have  an  evening  when  the 
sun  sets  and  a  morning  when  the  sun  rises.  But  the 
first  three  days  were  without  a  sun,  which,  according 
to  Scripture,  was  created  only  on  the  fourth  day." 

"If,"  he  writes  elsewhere,  "in  the  six  other  days 
the  words  evening  and  morning  characterize  a  suc- 
cession of  time  analogous  to  that  with  which  we  are 

'  Lib.  xi.  cap.  vi. 

'^  "  Qui  dies  cujusmodi  sint,  aut  perdifRcile  nobis,  aut  etiam 
impossibile  est  cogitare,  quanto  magis  dicere." 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  75 

familiar  in  the  daily  alternations  of  evening  and  morn- 
ing, I  fail  to  see  why  the  seventh  day  did  not  have  an 
evening,  and  why  it  was  not  followed  by  another 
morning.  I  look  in  vain  for  a  reason  why  it  is  not 
said  of  this  day  as  of  the  others,  '  And  the  evening 
and  the  morning  were  the  seventh  day.'  In  the 
hypothesis  of  ordinary  days  it  is  one  of  the  seven 
which  constitnte  the  week,  the  repetition  of  which 
gives  us  months  and  years  and  centuries.  It  should, 
consequently,  have  had  an  evening,  and  been  followed 
by  the  morning  of  the  eighth  day.  Then,  and  then 
only,  would  Moses  have  completed  his  enumeration 
and  returned  to  the  first  day  named.  It  is,  then,  more 
than  probable  that  the  seven  days  of  Genesis  were 
entirely  different  in  their  duration  from  those  which 
now  mark  the  succession  of  time.  Nothing  of  which 
we  are  now  cognizant  can  give  us  any  information 
regarding  the  first  six  days  of  the  earth's  formation. 
The  evening  and  the  morning,  the  light  and  darkness, 
called  day  and  night,  were  not,  then,  the  same  as  we 
now  understand  by  solar  days.  Regarding  the  three 
days  which  preceded  the  formation  of  the  sun  this 
may  be  accepted  as  certain."  ^ 

But  if  the  Genesiac  days  are  not  solar  days,  what 
are  they  ?  The  saint  has  told  us  what  they  are  not. 
Had  he  any  conception  of  what  they  were  ?  A  close 
study  of  his  latest  works  will  leave  no  doubt  about 
this  matter. 

The  word  "days,"  according  to  the  illustrious 
doctor,  are  not  to  be  taken  in  a  literal,  but  in  a  figu- 
rative, sense.  They  mean,  not  ordinary  days,  but 
the  works  of  creation  which  were  unfolded  in  time  by 

'  De  Genesi  ad  Litteram,  lib.  iv.  cap.  18. 


yC  BIBLE,  SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

a  series  of  progressive  transformations.  For  a  similar 
reason  the  words  evening  and  morning  are  to  be  inter- 
preted metaphorically  as  meaning  not  dnsk  and  dawn, 
but  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  divine  works.  ^ 

God,  according  to  St.  Augustine  as  well  as  accord- 
ing to  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  first  created  matter  in  an 
elementary  or  nebulous  state.  From  this  primordial 
matter — created  ex  iiihilo — was  evolved,  by  the  action 
of  physical  laws  imposed  on  it  by  the  Creator,  all  the 
various  forms  of  terrestrial  life  that  subsequently 
appeared.  In  this  process  of  evolution  there  was 
succession,  but  no  division  of  time.  The  Almighty 
completed  the  work  He  had  begun,  not  intermit- 
tently and  by  a  series  of  special  creations,  but  through 
the  agency  of  secondary  causes — by  the  operation  of 
natural  laws  and  forces — caiisales  i-aiiones — of  which 
He  was  the  Author. 

The  seventh  day,  which  has  no  evening,  still 
endures.  It  means,  therefore,  a  period  of  time,  as  do 
also  the  other  six  days,  for  they  are  and  must  be 
identical.  The  divine  week  spoken  of  in  Genesis  is 
consequently  unlike  the  human  week.  The  days  in 
the  two  cases,  far  from  being  analogous,  are  widely 
dissimilar  and  express  ideas  totally  different. 

The  great  doctor  of  Hippo  was  not,  it  is  true,  able 
to  demonstrate  the  truth  of  his  theory,  but  he  showed 
that  it  was  more  reasonable  and  more  probable  than 
any  others  that  had  been  advanced,  and  at  the  same 

'  "  Restat  ergo  ut  intelligamus,  in  ipsa  quidem  mora  tenipo- 
ris  ipsas  distinctiones  openim  sic  appellatas,  vesparam  propter 
transactionem  consummati  opens,  et  mane  propter  inchoa- 
tionem  fiitnri  operis." — De  Genesi  contra  Ma7iichceos,  lib.  i. 
cap.  14. 


THE   MOSAIC    IlEXAEMERON.  77 

time  more  conformable  both  with  the  words  of  the 
Sacred  Text  and  with  the  declarations  of  science.  He 
blazed  out  the  road  to  be  travelled  by  those  who  came 
after  him,  and  established  principles  which  served  as 
the  basis  of  all  future  exegesis. 

"  Unable  to  enter  the  port  himself,  he  avoided  mis- 
takinsf  a  moving  island  for  the  main  land.  If  he  cast 
anchor,  it  was  but  en  passant  and  during  the  night  only. 
His  stops,  while  his  vessel  was  riding  at  anchor,  were 
but  so  many  halts  in  his  voyage.  For  twenty-five 
years  he  sailed  the  high  seas  without  being  able  to 
touch  land.  Less  fortunate  tlian  Columbus,  he  never 
reached  the  world  which  was  the  object  of  his  quest. 
The  voyage  was  too  long  for  a  mariner  without  a  com- 
pass.  But  it  prepared  the  way  for  discovery.  He  sig- 
nalized all  the  shoals,  lie  pointed  out  the  route,  erected 
lighthouses,  and  indicated  the  direction  to  be  taken. 
Unable  to  be  the  author  of  modern  exegesis,  he  was 
its  precursor  and  prophet.  Prevented  from  establish- 
ing it  on  a  firm  basis,  he  did  what  was  probably 
better.  In  the  name  of  Moses  lie  demonstrated  its 
necessit}-."  ' 
1  A  little  geology,  a  view  of  the  fossil iferous  strata  of 
the  earth's  crust  in  the  light  of  palreontology,  an  ink- 
j  ling  of  the  theory  of  cosmogony  as  based  on  the  dis- 
\  coveries  of  modern  physics  and  astronomy,  were  all 
that  the  saint  required  to  place  his  system  of  inter- 
pretation on  the  solid  foundation  on  which  it  now 
reposes. 

He  was  conscious  of  his  ignorance  of  certain  data, 
which  he  did  not  possess  and  of  which  he  could  not 
divine  the  character.     But  he  looked  to  the  future  to 

'  Origine  du  Monde,  par  Al.  Motais,  p.  220. 


78  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

remove  difficulties  which  to  him  were  insuperable. 
And  when,  long  centuries  afterward,  geology  and 
astronomy  achieved  their  glorious  triumphs,  exegetists 
had  nothing  more  to  do  than  apply  the  inductions  of 
science  to  the  principles  which  the  great  Doctor  had 
laid  down,  and  lo  !  Moses  became  his  own  interpreter 
and  the  Bible  and  Science  were  one. 

Derivative  Creation. 

The  most   remarkable   feature   of  St.    Augustine's 

system    of    exegesis — a    feature    that   has   been   only 

incidentally    alluded    to    in     what    precedes — is    the 

special  stress  he  lays  on  the  operation  of  natural  laws, 

and  the  observations  he  makes  concerning  derivative 

K   creation  or  creation  through  the  agency  of  secondary 

\   causes.       In    this    respect    he    is   unique   among   the 

\   Fathers,  and  far  in  advance  of  any  of  his  predecessors. 

/   Indeed,  it  is  only  now  that  the  world  is  beginning  to 

awaken  to  a  realization  of  the  far-reaching  character 

of  the  principles  which  the  saint  established,  and  of 

their  complete  harmony  with  both   the  teachings  of 

science  and  the  truths  of  revelation.     This  is  especially 

the  case  in  respect  of  the  bearing  of  his  doctrines  on 

;  the  modern  theory  of  evolution. 

I       It  may  seem  strange  to  some  of  my  readers  to  be 

I    told  that  St.  Augustine  was  the  father  of  theistic  evo- 

,   lution,   and   yet,    paradoxical  as   it   may  appear,   the 

statement  is  substantially  true.     Of  course  it  is  quite 

evident  that  he  knew  nothing  about  evolution  as  it  is 

now  taught.     When  nothing  more  was  known  of  the 

sciences  of  botany,  physiologv',  and  zoology  than  the 

1  little  that  had  been  taught  by  Aristotle,  Galen,   and 

'  Pliny;  when  only  a  few  species  of  animals  and  plants 


THE    MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON. 


79 


had  been  studied,  and  those  but  imperfectly;  when 
geology  and  palaeontology  were  unknown,  and  when 
the  few  fossils  that  were  occasionally  met  with  at- 
tracted either  no  attention  or  were  regarded  as  mere 
lusiis  iiaturcE  or  evidences  of  the  plastic  power  of  the 
earth;  when  the  microscope  was  undreamed  of,  and 
when  the  world  of  microscopic  life,  the  world  "  of  the 
infinitely  little,"  was  still  hidden  from  the  gaze  of  the 
investigator;  when  the  telescope  and  the  spectroscope 
were  not  available  for  researches  regarding  the  origin 
and  constitution  of  the  physical  universe, — it  could 
not  be  expected  that  even  a  genius  like  that  of  St. 
Augustine,  marvellous  as  it  was  for  its  intuitions  and 
for  its  grasp  of  scientific  principles,  would  be  able  to 
take  the  same  comprehensive  view  of  the  vast  field  of 
nature  as  one  may  now  take  fifteen  hundred  years 
later,  or  as  the  illustrious  Doctor  would  himself  take 
if  he  were  now  living. 

And   if  the   saint   could   have   had   no   knowledge 
of  evolution  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  now  under- 
stood, still  less  could  he  have  been  an  evolutionist  like 
unto  Darwin,  Romanes,  or  Herbert  Spencer,  or  like 
Schmidt,  Vogt,  or  Ernst  Haeckel.     The  faith  he  pro- 
fessed, the  philosophy  by  which  he  was  guided,  and 
the  revelation  which  illumined  an  intellect  naturally 
perspicacious  and  open  to  truth  made  this  impossible. 
In  what  sense,  then,  was  he  an  evolutionist,  and  how 
may  he  be  considered  as  the  precursor  or  father  of 
modern  evolution  ?     Let  us  see. 
^      We  have  already  remarked  that  St.  Augustine  seems 
'  to  have  been  the  first  of  the  Fathers  to  have  a  distinct 
,  conception  of  the  fact  that  the  world  is  under  the  reign 
)  of  law,  and  that  God  in  the  government  of  the  physi- 


80  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

cal  universe  acts  not  directly  or  immediately,  but  indi- 
rectly and  through  the  agency  of  secondary  causes,  or 
what  we  are  pleased  to  denominate  "the  laws  and  forces 
of  nature."  His  language  on  this  subject  is  so  explicit 
that  it  cannot  be  mistaken.  In  his  commentaries  on 
Genesis,  in  his  "  City  of  God,"  as  well  as  in  his  other 
works,  he  is  continually  speaking  of  the  laws  of  nature 
— leges  naturcB — by  which  created  things  are  gov- 
erned; the  ordinary  course  of  nature — tisitatiim  cursiim 
ordinemque  iiatiircE ;  the  causal  reasons  of  things — 
causales  rationes — which  God  gave  to  the  world  when 
He  created  all  things,  and  in  virtue  of  which  inorganic 
matter  became  capable  of  transformation  and  organic 
matter  acquired  the  power  of  development.  He  insists 
on  it  that  we  should  explain  the  phenomena  of  the 
physical  world  in  conformity  with  the  nature  of  things 
— naturas  rerum — and  not  by  the  constant  intervention 
of  miracles,  and  emphasizes  the  fact  that  the  Almighty 
has  "ordained  all  things  in  measure  and  number  and 
weight." 

St.  Augustine,  as  we  have  seen,  clearly  distinguishes 
between  creation  properly  so  called — opus  creationis — 
and  the  work  of  formation  or  development — opus  for- 
matioms.  The  former  was  direct  and  simultaneous, 
for  God,  the  saint  declares,  created  omnia  sjmul^  while 
the  latter,  he  contends,  was  gradual  and  progressive 
and  conformable  to  the  laws  of  nature  which  now 
obtain.  He  tells  us  distinctly  that  animals  and  plants 
were  produced  not  as  they  now  appear,  but  virtually 
and  in  germ — m  semiiie  or  ex  seminibus — and  that  the 
Creator  gave  to  the  earth  the  power  of  evolving  from 
itself  by  the  operation  of  natural  laws  the  various 
forms  of  animal  and  vegetable  life. 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  8 1 

"As  there  is  invisibly  in  the  seed,"  he  affirms,  "all 
that  which  in  the  course  of  time  constitutes  the  tree, 
so  also  are  we  to  view  the  world  when  it  was  created 
by  God — cum  shnul  omnia  creavit — as  containing  all 
that  which  was  subsequently  manifested,  not  only  the 
heavens  with  the  sun  and  moon  and  stars,  .  .  . 
but  also  those  things  which  He  produced  potentially 
and  causally — potentialiier  atque  causaliter — from  the 
waters  and  the  earth  before  they  appeared  as  we  now 
know  them."  '  Again,  he  affirms  that  all  things 
were  in  the  beginning  created  in  an  elementary  con- 
dition— in  quadmn  textnra  elenientorum — and  received 
their  development  subsequently,  acceptis  opportiini- 
tatibus. 

In  order  that  he  may  not  be  misunderstood  the  saint 
expressed  himself  in  manifold  ways.  He  has  an 
exuberance  of  language  to  make  his  meaning  clear, 
and  a  wealth  of  illustration  which  is  as  beautiful  as  it 
is  simple  and  apposite.  In  commenting  on  the  words, 
"  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  the  green  herb,"  he  states 
explicitly  that  plants  were  created  not  directly,  but 
potentially — in  Jieri^  in  causa — that  the  earth  pro- 
duced herb  and  tree  causally — causaliter — and  in  vir- 
tue of  a  power  it  had  received  from  the  Creator — 
producendi  accepisse  vij'tutem} 

He  insists  on  it  that  Moses  in  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis  teaches  that  creation  was  successive,  se- 
cundum intervalla  teniporum ;  that  the  works  of 
creation  were  not  disconnected,  but  that,  on  the  con- 

'  De  Genesi  ad  Litt.,  lib.  v.  cap.  xxiii. 

^  "  Causaliter  ergo  tunc  dictum  est  produx'sse  terram  herbam 
et  lignum,  id   est  producendi  accepisse  viilutem." — Op.  cit., 
lib.  V.  cap.  V. 
6 


82  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

trary,  they  were  continuous  and  dovetailed,  so  to 
speak,  into  one  another  ;  that  there  was  a  perniixtio 
die  I'll  m ;  that  all  things,  plants,  trees,  and  animals, 
appear,  multiply,  and  develop  according  to  the  special 
laws  of  their  nature — ut  agant  temporalcs  mimeros 
siios  naiiiJ'is  propriis  distributos ;  that  their  de\elop- 
ment  is  normal,  according  to  laws  ordained  for  each 
individual  ;  that  it  was  the  same  in  the  beginning 
as  it  is  now  ;  that  then,  as  now,  it  was  effected  not 
within  a  few  ordinary  solar  days,  but  during  a  pe- 
riod of  time  which  is  indeterminate — per  volumina 
scFCulorian. 

"In  the  beginning,"  he  declares  in  his  great  work 
against  the  Manichaeans,*  "God  created  heaven  and 
earth.  By  the  words  heaven  and  earth  are  meant  all 
creatures  made  by  God.  They  are  thus  denominated 
by  the  name  of  visible  things  in  order  that  weak 
human  minds  may  more  readily  comprehend  them. 
Matter  then  as  just  created  was  invisible  and  formless, 
and  in  the  condition  which  the  Greeks  designated  by 
the  word  cJiaos.  From  this  individual  beings — those 
having  form — were   produced." 

This  formless  matter,  which  God  created  from  noth- 
ing, was  first  called  heaven  and  earth,  and  it  is  written 
that  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  heaven  and 
earth,"  not  because  it  was  forthwith  heaven  and  earth, 
but  because  it  was  destined  to  become  heaven  and 
earth. ^  When  we  consider  the  seed  of  a  tree,  we 
say  that  it  contains  the  roots,  the  trunk,  the  branches, 
the  fruits,  and  the  leaves,  not  because  they  are  already 
there,  but  because  they  shall  be  produced  from  it.    It  is 

'  De  Genesi  contra  Manicheos,  lib.  i.  cap.  v. 

*  "  Non  quia  jam  hoc  erat,  .sed  qtiia  jam  hoc  esse  poterat." 


THE   MOSAIC   IIEXAEMERON.  83 

in  this  sense  that  it  is  declared  that  "  In  the  beginning 
God  created  heaven  and  earth  ;  that  is  to  say,  the  seed 
of  the  heaven  and  the  earth  udien  the  matter  of  the 
heaven  and  the  earth  was  yet  in  a  confused  state.  Be- 
cause heaven  and  earth  were  to  be  produced  from  this 
matter,  it  is  thus  called  by  anticipation,  as  it  were, 
heaven  and  earth."  ^  Verily,  in  reading  these  words  we 
can  fancy  that  we  are  perusing  some  modern  scientific 
treatise  on  cosmogony  instead  of  an  exposition  of 
Genesis  written  by  a  Father  of  the  Church  fifteen 
centuries  ago. 

The  theory  of  creation,  therefore,  as  held  by  the 
Fathers,  does  not,  contrary  to  what  is  so  often  sup- 
posed in  our  day,  "necessitate  the  perpetual  search 
after  manifestations  of  miraculous  powers  and  per- 
petual catastrophes.  Creation  is  not  a  miraculous 
interference  with  the  laws  of  nature,  but  the  very 
institution  of  those  laws.  Law  and  regularity,  not 
arbitrary  intervention,  was  the  patristic  ideal  of  crea- 
tion. With  this  notion  they  admitted  without  diffi- 
culty the  most  surprising  origin  of  living  creatures, 
provided  it  took  place  by  law.  They  held  that  when 
God  said,  'Let  the  waters  produce,  let  the  earth  pro- 
duce,' He  conferred  forces  on  the  elements  of  earth 
and  water  which  enabled  them  naturally  to  produce 
the  various  species  of  arganic  beings.  This  power, 
they  thought,  remains  attached  to  the  elements 
throughout  all  time." 

St.  Thomas  Aquinas  brings  out  this  idea  clearly 
when,  in  quoting  St.  Augustine,  he  declares  that  "in 
the  institution  of  nature  we  do  not  look  for  miracles, 

'Loc.  cit.,  lib.  i.  cap.  vii. 


84  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

but  for  the  laws  of  nature. ' ' '  The  same  Angel  of  the 
Schools,  in  comparing  the  literal  interpretation  of  St. 
Basil  with  that  advocated  by  St.  Augustine,  asserts 
that  the  former  is  more  conformable  to  the  text,  but 
that  the  latter  is  more  reasonable  and  better  adapted 
to  defend  the  Sacred  Scriptures  against  the  attacks  of 
unbelievers.^ 

Principles  of  Exegesis  Unchangeable. 

From  the  foregoing  it  will  be  seen  how  ill  founded 
is  the  charge  that  Catholic  exegesis  is  continually 
changing  in  order  to  make  way  for  the  new.  So  far  is 
this  from  being  the  case  that  it  in  man\'  cases  rejects 
the  new  and  holds  on  to  the  old.  This  is  particularly 
true  of  the  theories  of  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  St. 
Augustine  regarding  the  origin  of  the  world,  and  it 
were  easy  to  show  that  it  is  equally  true  of  other  views 
which  they  maintained.  In  details,  in  matters  of  minor 
importance,  no  one  denies  or  can  deny  that  there  have 
been  changes,  or  that  Catholic  exegetists  have  modified 
their  expositions  of  the  Scriptures  so  as  to  make  them 
harmonize  with  the  latest  results  of  scientific  research. 

But  changes  in  matters  of  detail  in  biblical  interpre- 
tation, changes  in  points  of  view  regarding  the  Mosaic 
cosmogony,  are  quite  different  from  changes  of  prin- 
ciples in  questions  of  exegesis.  The  principles  that 
have  guided  theologians  and  commentators  have  ever 
remained  the  same,  however  great  may  have  been  the 

'  "  In  prima  autem  institutione  naturae  non  quaeritur  mirac- 
ulum,  sed  quid  natura  rerum  habeat,  ut  Augustinus  dicit. 
Lib.  ii.  sup.  Gen.  ad  Litt.,  cap.  i."     Sum.  lae,  Ixvii.  4  ad  3. 

•■'  Ibid. 


THE  MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON,  85 

mutations  of  profane  science,  and  however  much  sci- 
entific investigation  may  have  caused  us  to  revise  our 
views  of  nature. 

Catholic  exegetists  have  always  regarded  the  Bible 
as  the  word  of  God,  but(one  of  the  principles  of  inter- 
pretation which  they  never  lose  sight  of,  and  which 
it  is  important  for  us  to  bear  in  mind  here,  is  that 
we  must  submit  certain  questions  of  Scripture  to 
the  examination  of  both  reason  and  science.)  This  is 
especially  true  of  topics  like  the  cosmogony  of  Moses, 
which  refers  to  many  things  that  come  within  the  pur- 
view of  science,  and  which  science  alone  can  explain. 

Origen  attached  so  much  importance  to  a  knowledge 
of  profane  science  that,  as  St.  Gregory  Thaumaturgus 
relates,  he  taught  his  students  physics  and  astronomy 
before  he  introduced  them  to  the  study  of  Sacred 
Scripture.  St.  Augustine  is  no  less  positive  in  affirm- 
ing the  necessity  on  the  part  of  the  commentator  of 
making  his  interpretation  accord  with  the  dictates 
of  reason  and  the  certain  data  of  science — certissima 
ratione  vel  experientia.  He  asserts  expressly  that  the 
human  sciences  raise  the  mind  to  divine  things — dis- 
ciplincB  liberalcs  affcreiit  intellcctuin  ad  divina ;  that 
philosophy,  which  is  the  chief  among  the  sciences — 
omnium  disciplinariim  excogitatr-ix — is  of  special  ser- 
vice in  begetting,  defending,  nourishing,  and  strength- 
ening the  faith :  Fides^  qiicE  per  scientiam  gignitiir^ 
nuiritiir^  defenditur^  corroboratiir. 

One  of  the  reasons  that  moved  the  Alexandrine 
School  to  adopt  the  theory  of  simultaneous  creation 
was,  as  we  have  seen,  that  it  harmonized  better  than 
any  other  theory  with  the  philosophical  systems  then 
in  vogue.      And   the   reason  why,   at  various  subse- 


86  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

quent  epochs,  divers  other  views  were  held  was 
because  such  views  were  considered  to  be  more  in 
consonance  with  the  deductions  of  science  and  the 
declarations  of  the  Sacred  Text. 

The    theories,    then,    of    exegetists    have    changed 
because    science — or    what    was    called    science — has 
changed,  and  not  because  there  has  been  any  change 
in,  much  less  repudiation  of,  the  principles  of  scrip- 
tural interpretation.     The  principles  of  exegesis  that 
Origen    taught,   that   Basil   followed,   that   Augustine 
proclaimed   were   ever   the   same,   and   one  with    the 
/  principles  that  Catholic  theologians  now  employ. 
Cardinal  Franzelin,  in  his  learned  tractate  on  Sacred 
Scripture,  expressly  declares  that  "the  interpretation 
of  questions  of  Scripture  which  treat  of  natural  things 
may  be  materially  aided  by  the  natural  sciences."  ^ 
This  view  of  the  erudite  cardinal,  to  which  Leo  XIII. 
gives  renewed   and    emphatic   expression  in  his  late 
Encyclical  Provideiiiissimus  Deiis\,  is  the  one  univer- 
sally held   by  contemporary  theologians,   and  it  was 
the  one,  and  the  only  one,  which  found  acceptance 
with  the  Fathers  and  Doctors  of  the  early  Church. 
{  No,  I  repeat  it,  the  principles  of  exegesis  have  not 
I  changed,  but  science  has  progressed,  and  theories  that 
\  were  once   considered   as   so   much  veritable   science 
]  have  been  discarded   for  others  which  for  the  nonce 
)  are  looked  upon  as  being  more  tenable. 

If  scientists  themselves  modify  their  views  to  suit 
the  latest  advance  of  science,  can  they,  with  any  show 
of  reason,  find    fault  with  theologians  and  exegetists 

*  Interpretatio  in  locis  Scripturae  quae  agunt  de  rebus  natu- 
ralibus,  multum  juvari  potest  per  scientias  naturales. —  Trada- 
tus  de  Trad,  et  Script.,  p.  731. 


THE   MOSAIC   IlEXAEMERON.  87 

for  doing  the  same?  Surely  not.  The  Fathers  and 
Doctors  of  the  Church  were  fully  abreast  with  the 
science  of  their  time,  and  it  were  folly  to  expect  more 
than  this  of  them — to  exact  of  them  a  knowledge 
which  those  who  made  the  pursuit  of  science  a  spe- 
cialty did  not  possess,  or  to  imagine  that  they  should 
be  as  far  advanced  in  the  inductive  sciences  as  those 
who  have  had  the  benefit  of  long  centuries  of  observa- 
tion and  experiment/ 

So  far,  I  have  directed  attention  to  the  interpretation 
by  the  Fathers  of  the  Genesiac  word  "day" — to  the 
theory  of  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  regarding  the  primi- 
tive matter  from  which  the  universe  was  formed,  and 
to  the  still  more  remarkable  theory  of  St.  Augustine 
concerning  organic  evolution.  It  would  not  be  a  dif- 
ficult matter  to  point  out  other  points  of  resemblance 
— some  of  them  almost  equally  striking — between  the 
views  of  the  early  Fathers  in  matters  of  science  and 
the  current  teachings  of  some  of  the  most  competent 
exponents  of  contemporary  thought. 

Matter  and  Light. 

Thus,  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  tells  us  that  in  nature 
there  is  transformation,  but  no  annihilation,  of  matter. 
"Everything  is  transformed;  nothing  is  lost."  All 
things  move,  as  it  were,  in  a  circle.  There  are, 
indeed,  changes  innumerable,  but  all  things,  sooner 
or  later,  return  to  their  original  condition.  Under 
the  influence  of  the  sun  clouds  are  formed  from  the 
sea;  the  clouds  produce  rain,  and  the  rain  eventually 

^  See  also,  in  this  connection,  the  statement  of  Leo  XIII.  in 
the  above-mentioned  Encyclical. 


88  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

returns  again  to  the  sea  whence  it  came.  So  it  is  with 
the  phenomena  of  combustion  and  decay,  in  the  burn- 
ing of  oil,  in  the  disintegration  of  the  human  body. 
There  is  a  continuous  and  uninterrupted  cycle  of 
changes,  chemical  and  physical,  but  no  destruction 
of  matter.  How  like  a  paragraph  from  a  modern 
treatise  on  chemistry  are  those  words  of  the  Hexaem- 
eron  of  the  illustrious  Greek  exegetist  of  fifteen  cen- 
turies ago  ! 

Again  :  How  wonderfully  the  views  of  the  acute 
Greek  Doctor  regarding  the  nature  of  light  are  corrob- 
orated by  the  results  of  modern  physical  research  !  It 
has  been  objected  to  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  that  it 
must  be  false  because  it  represents  light  as  having 
been  created  .  before  the  sun  and  moon  and  stars. 
Light,  according  to  the  narrative  of  Genesis,  was 
created  on  the  first  day,  whereas  the  heavenly  bodies 
were  not  called  into  existence  until  the  fourth  day. 
These  statements,  rationalists  and  superficial  unbe- 
lievers have  declared,  are  irreconcilable  with  the 
known  conclusions  of  science,  but  so  far  is  this  from 
being  the  case  that,  paradoxical  as  it  may  appear, 
they  are  in  perfect  accord  with  the  latest  available 
knowledge  regarding  the  nature  of  light.  But  St. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa  finds  no  difficulty  in  admitting  the 
existence  of  light  before  the  formation  of  the  sun  and 
i  other  celestial  luminaries.  Anticipating  the  corpus- 
cular theory  of  Newton,  he  imagined  that  light  was 
a  special  kind  of  matter  of  which  the  luminous  orbs 
of  heaven  were  composed ;  that  the  light-giving  mole- 
cules which  compose  the  sun  and  moon  and  stars  were 
.  originally  disseminated  throughout  the  primordial  neb- 
•  ulous  mass,    and  came  together  in  virtue  of  certain 


THE    MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  89 

laws  of  affinity  and  attraction  to  which  they  were 
subject.  His  theory  was  wrong,  we  now  say,  and  so 
.  was  Newton's  wrong,  although  there  are  not  wanting 
certain  contemporary  scientists  who  still  aver  that  it  is 
more  tenable  than  any  other  theory  yet  advanced. 
But  be  that  as  it  may,  the  fact  remains  that  light, 
whatever  its  nature,  could  and  undoubtedly  did  exist 
before  the  creation  of  the  "two  great  lights"  that 
Genesis   speaks   of  as   the   work   of  the   fourth    day. 

I  Whether  or  not  we  accept  the  Huyhenian  hypothesis 

that  light  is  due  to  the  vibration  of  a  medium  filling 

I  all   space,   known   as   the   ether,    the   undulations   of 

which  are  capable  of  producing  an  impression  on  the 

,  retina,  it  still  remains  an  incontestable  fact,  according 

yto  Laplace's  beautiful  theory,  that  "the  sun  is  born) 
of  light,  rather  than  light  of  the  sun."  For,  long' 
before  the  nebulous  mass  from  which  the  sun  was 
evolved  was  sufficiently  condensed  to  form  the  bril- 
liant luminary  which  we  now  behold,  the  revolving 
cosmic  mass  had,  in  virtue  of  its  condensation  and 
contraction,  begun  to  emit  light  and  dissipate  the 
darkness  that  before  had  enveloped  the  immensity  of 

;   chaos.     Not  only  this.     The  principle  of  light,  what- 

\  ever  it  be,  is,  as  all  physicists  are  aware,  ever  latent 
round  about  us,  and  requires  only  special  excitants  to 
develop  it  and  make  us  conscious  of  its  existence.  It 
is  disclosed    in    the    lightning's   flash,    in    the  aurora 

I  borealis  and  aurora  australis,  and  in  various  phe- 
nomena of  chemical  and  mechanical  action  and  phos- 
phorescence. 

If,  however,  we  interrogate  scientists  regarding  the 
nature  of  light,  the  only  response  which  we  shall 
receive  is,  "We  do  not  know."     We  can  but  study  its 


90  BIBLE,  SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

properties,  and  these  lead  us  to  believe  that  it  is  most 
probably  -a  mode  of  motion  excited  in  the  ether  by 
what  are  called  luminous  bodies.  It  is  the  undulatory 
movements  of  this  ether  which  by  means  of  the  eye 
give  rise  to  the  sensation  of  sight.  But  of  the  true 
nature  of  light  we  are  absolutely  ignorant. 

"  At  what  period  in  the  development  of  the  universe 
the  emission  of  light  began  science  is  unable  to  say. 
It  can,  however,  assert  that  light  existed  long  prior  to 
the  separation  of  matter  or  the  formation  of  distinct 
luminous  bodies.  For  this  reason  there  can,  there- 
fore, be  no  question  of  a  contradiction  between  the 
Genesiac  narrative  and  the  declarations  of  science 
regarding  the  origin  of  light.  "^ 

There  is  certainly  nothing  in  modern  science  that 
can  impair  in  the  least  the  truthfulness  of  the  Mosaic 
cosmogony,  much  less  discredit  the  Genesiac  narra- 
tive. We  may  to-day  have  truer  conceptions  of  the 
nature  of  light  than  had  St.  Gregory  and  St.  Augus- 
tine, but  the  enemies  of  the  Bible  are  no  more  able 
now  to  show  any  discrepancy  between  the  certain  data 
of  science  and  the  words  of  Genesis  regarding  the 
creation  of  light  than  were  the  impugners  of  the 
Inspired  Record  in  the  first  ages  of  the  Church's 
existence. 

And  so  I  might  continue  giving  illustrations  of  the 
perfect  harmony  that  exists,  and  must  exist,  between 
Genesis  and  science.  But  my  object  is  not  to  write  a 
treatise  on  the  subject,  but  only  to  exhibit,  in  a  few 
of  the  more  controverted  points,  the  fact  that  there  is 
no  ground  whatever  for  the  statements  that  are  so 
often   made   regarding    the    hopelessly   irreconcilable 

^PfafF:  Schoepfungsgeschichte,  p.  746. 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  9 1 

conflict  which  a  certain  class  of  scientists  would  have 
us  believe  exists  between  revelation  and  science — 
between  the  declarations  of  Moses  and  the  legitimate 
conclusions  of  the  Higher  Criticism  or  the  indisput- 
able inductions  of  geology  and  astronomy. 


CHAPTER  V. 

MODERN   THEORIES   OF  COSMOGONY  AND  INTERPRE- 

TA  TION. 

The  Restitution  or  Interval  Theory. 

REGARDING  the  Restitniioji  and  Period  theories, 
of  which  mention  has  already  been  made,  a 
brief  acconnt  will  be  sufficient. 

The  Restitution  or  Interval  theory,  as  it  is  some- 
times called,  is  a  kind  of  link  between  the  literal  and 
period  theories.  Like  the  former,  it  interprets  the 
word  "day"  literally,  but  at  the  same  time  it  postu- 
lates an  indefinite  lapse  of  time  between  the  first  act 
of  creation  and  the  six  days  of  Genesis.  In  this  wise 
it  aims  to  harmonize  the  assumptions  of  the  two 
theories  and  to  blend  them  into  one. 

According  to  the  interval  theory,  the  creation  of  the 
earth,  of  animals,  and  of  plants  was  slow  and  successive, 
as  is  evidenced  by  the  facts  of  geology.  But  a  great 
cataclysm  supervened  which  destroyed  all  forms  of  ter- 
restrial life — whence  the  fossiliferous  deposits  of  the 
earth's  crust — and  reduced  everything  to  chaos.  This, 
we  are  told,  is  what  is  signified  by  the  words,  "And 
the  earth  was  void  and  empty,  and  darkness  was  upon 
the  face  of  the  deep." 

If,  however,  the  first  creation,  indicated  by  the 
words,  "In  the  beginning  God  created  heaven  and 
earth,"  was  slow  and  successive,  the  second  creation, 
or   restoration,    following  the  great  catastrophe,   was 

92 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  93 

accomplished  in  such  a  short  space  of  time — six  ordi- 
nary days — that  there  is  left  no  trace  of  it  for  scientific 
investigation.  But  this  system,  proposed  by  Buckland 
and  favored  by  Chalmers,  Cardinal  Wiseman,  and 
other  distinguished  scholars,  has  now  but  few  if  any 
defenders,  as  it  is  manifestly  at  variance  with  some  of 
the  simplest  facts  of  geology. 

"A  careful  study  of  the  earth's  crust  and  the  fossils 
which  it  contains,"  says  a  well-known  French  writer, 
"proves  that  the  cataclysms  which  were  formerly 
admitted  never  had  any  existence  in  fact — that  between 
the  flora  and  fauna  of  any  given  period  and  those  of  the 
period  following  there  was  never  any  solution  of  con- 
tinuity. The  species  of  one  epoch  overlap  those  of 
the  next  epoch.  Among  the  mollusks  at  present 
existing  in  our  seas,  and  even  among  contemporary 
mammals,  there  are  many  which  antedate  man's  appa- 
rition on  earth  by  centuries,  and  even  many  thousands 
of  years.  For  this  reason  it  is  impossible  to  suppose 
that  these  animals  were  created  only  a  few  days  before 
the  advent  of  man. ' '  ^ 


The  Period  Theory. 

According  to  the  period  theory^  which  at  present  has 
more  defenders  than  any  other,  the  "days"  of  Genesis 
were  not  ordinary  days  of  twenty-four  hours,  but  inde- 
terminate periods  of  time.  It  is  also  known  as  the 
concoi^distic  theory,  because  its  advocates  contend  that 
it  exhibits  a  perfect  accord  between  the  teachings  of 

^  Lavaud  de  Lestrade  :  Accord  de  la  Scie^ice  avec  le  Premier 
Chapitre  de  la  Genese,  pp.  30  et  seq. 


94  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

science  and  the  declarations  of  Genesis,  in  opposition 
to  various  non-concordistic  theories,  which  deny  any 
possible  reconciliation  between  geology  and  Moses. 

The  Genesiac  days,  concordists  claim,  were  not  ordi- 
nary solar  days,  but  indefinite  periods  of  time.  The 
possibility  of  attaching  any  other  meaning  to  the 
word  is,  they  assure  us,  precluded,  not  only  by  science, 
which  utterly  repudiates  days  of  twenty-four  hours, 
but  also  by  the  Sacred  Text  itself. 

As  all  the  readers  of  the  Bible  are  aware,  there  are 
many  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  not  to  speak  of 
the  New,  in  which  the  Hebrew  word  or,  yom — day — 
signifies  an  indeterminate  period  of  time.  Indeed, 
one  may  find  a  striking  instance  in  point  without 
going  outside  of  the  Mosaic  narrative  of  creation.  In 
Genesis  ii.  4  we  read  the  words:  "  These  are  the  gen- 
erations of  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  when  they  were 
created,  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  made  the  heaven  and 
the  earth."  Here  the  word  "day"  obviously  signifies 
not  any  ordinary  day,  but  an  indefinite  period  of  time. 

Again,  as  Abbe  Vigouroux  well  observes,  "  Moses 
was  obliged  to  employ  the  word  or,  yotn — da}' — to  sig- 
nify period  or  epoch,  as  there  is  no  special  word  in 
Hebrew  to  express  this  idea.  This  fact,  generally 
unknown,  deserves  serious  consideration.  The  repug- 
nance that  many  have  to  admitting  day-epochs  arises 
from  the  fact  that  they  make  our  word  day  absolutely 
identical  with  the  word  or,  jj^^w,  which  is  not  the  case. 
We  have  the  word  "day"  distinct  from  the  word 
"epoch,"  whereas  in  Hebrew  there  is  but  one  expres- 
sion for  these  two  ideas.  The  Hebrew  tongue  is  not 
so  rich  in  its  vocabulary  as  our  own,  and  hence  it  is 
obliged  to  make  a  metaphorical  use  of  the  word  or, 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  95 

ydm^  to  express  the  idea  that  we  attribute  to  the  word 
epoch."  ' 

But  more  than  this.     The  Mosaic  days,  as  the  writer 

just  quoted  remarks,  are  metapliorical,  not  only  as  to 

their  signification,  but  also  as  to  their  number.     The 

figure  six  in  Genesis  is  not  to  be   taken  in  a  rigorous 

and  absolute  sense.     It  does  not  mean  that  there  were 

only  six  epochs  in  the  work  of  creation,  but  simply 

that  there  were  several  successive  periods  of  develop- 

I    ment     The  number  six  was  chosen  in  order  that  the 

I    divine  might  correspond   with  the  human  week,    in 

!    which  six  days  are  given  to  work,  and  the  seventh,  the 

1    Sabbath,   is   consecrated  to    repose.     Furthermore,   it 

must  be  noted  that  the  cosmogony  of  Moses  supplies 

only  the  chief  outlines  of  the  work  of  creation;  the 

details,  which  are  of  less  importance  to  the  generality 

of  men,  are  neglected.^  ,/ 

Again,  Genesis,  be  it  remembered,  was  not  intended 
by  its  author  to  serve  as  a  treatise  on  natural  or  phys- 
ical science.  Moses  was  neither  a  geologist  nor  an 
astronomer,  and  the  scope  of  his  narrative  did  not 
require  of  him  either  an  exact  or  a  profound  know- 
ledge of  science.  All  attempts,  therefore,  to  find  in 
his  account  of  creation  an  anticipation  of  the  results 
of  modern  geologic  and  astronomic  discovery,  and  to 
exhibit  a  detailed  and  exact  correspondence  between 

^  Manuel  biblique,  tome  i.  p.  444.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to 
observe  here  that  the  words  "evening"  and  "morning,"  ^"yy^ 
('ereb)  and  ipi)  (boker),  employed  in  the  Mosaic  story  of  cre- 
ation, are  likewise  to  be  understood  in  a  metaphorical  sense. 
Cf.  St.  Augustine,  7it  supra,  p.   199. 

^  Cf.  Les  Livres  Saints  et  la  Critique  rationaliste,  par  Abbe 
Vigouroux,  tome  iii.  p.  262. 


96  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

the  daj^s  of  Genesis  and  the  different  geologdcal  epochs, 
are  as  unwarranted  as  they  are  sure  to  pro\'e  nugatory. 
We  cannot,  as  is  so  often  imagined,  draw  a  line  of 
demarkation  between  any  one  geological  age  and  that 
which  precedes  or  follows  it.  The  fauna  and  flora  of 
one  period  frequently  overlap  those  of  proximate 
periods.  Throughout  the  whole  of  geologic  time — 
from  the  Cambrian  to  the  Quaternary  Period — we 
observe  a  dovetailing  of  the  various  forms  of  life  into 
one  another,  and  have  exhibited  in  the  most  striking 
manner  that  permixtio  dierum  of  which  St.  Augustine 
speaks,  but  of  which  he  could  have  had  no  knowledge 
in  the  sense  in  which,  since  his  day,  it  has  been  disclosed 
by  geology.  Both  science  and  Genesis  tell  us  of  a 
gradation  from  the  lower  to  the  higher  forms  of  life, 
and  in  this  respect  their  testimony  is  as  consonant  as 
it  is  remarkable. 

M.  Barrande,  the  most  eminent  of  modern  palaeon- 
tologists, and  one  most  competent  to  interpret  the  facts 
we  are  now  considering,  declares,  in  speaking  of  the 
subject,  that — 

"As  regards  the  creation  of  organized  beings  the 
whole  Genesiac  narrative  may  be  reduced  to  the  estab- 
lishing of  three  main  facts,  in  reference  to  which  it  is 
in  perfect  harmony  with  the  information  which  we 
have  thus  far  gained  by  a  study  of  geology.  These 
facts  are  as  follows:  i.  Vegetable  preceded  animal  life 
both  in  the  sea  and  on  land.  2.  Animal  life  was  at 
first  represented  by  animals  living  in  the  sea  and  by 
birds.  3.  As  a  consequence  animal  life  appeared  on 
the  land  at  a  subsequent  period,  and  man's  advent 
postdates  that  of  all  other  creatures.   .   .   . 

"  From  this  we  infer  that  the  inspired  writer  had  it 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  97 

in  purpose  to  fix  only  the  relative  dates  of  apparition 
of  plants  and  of  marine  and  terrestrial  animals,  with- 
out entering  into  any  historic  detail  relative  to  the 
subsequent  development  of  animal  and  vegetable  life. 
This  development  took  place  in  the  course  of  time, 
either  in  virtue  of  new  and  repeated  acts  of  the  Creator 
Himself,  or  as  the  result  of  laws  originally  established 
by  Him,  and  of  which  He  has  not  been  pleased  to  reveal 
the  nature. 

"In  studying  from  this  point  of  view  the  history  of 
the  creation  of  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms  as 
given  by  Moses,  we  find  that  it  is  in  perfect  harmony 
with  that  which  geology  has  gleaned  from  the  obser- 
vation of  facts;  that  is,  from  a  study  of  stratigraphic 
rocks  and  organic  remains — vegetable  and  animal — 
which  they  contain."  ^ 

These  words  of  the  distinguished  French  geologist 
are  corroborated  by  a  similar  declaration  of  the  illus- 
trious Ciivier,  who  does  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that  "the 
successive  evolutions  of  creation,  as  they  are  traced  for 
us  by  the  first  book  of  the  Pentateuch,  harmonize  in  a 
remarkable  manner  with  the  deductions  we  have  been 
able  to  make  from  the  discoveries  of  geology,  zoology, 
and  other  sciences  of  our  time." 

It  must  not,  however,  be  forgotten  that  the  concord- 
ist  theory,  like  all  other  theories  having  for  their 
object  the  reconciliation  of  science  and  Genesis,  is  but 
a  theory  and  nothing  more.  Just  now  it  is  more  gen- 
erally accepted  than  any  other  theory,  and  has,  no 
doubt,  much  to  recommend  it.  But  even  it  does  not 
explain  numerous  difficulties  that  still  puzzle  excge- 
tists.     There  are  yet  many  problems  to  be  solved — • 

^  Quoted  by  Vigouroux,  op.  cit.,  p.  261. 

7 


98  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

problems  of  physical  and  natural  science,  problems  of 
philosophy,  problems  of  higher  criticism — which  baffle 
all  present  efforts,  and  whose  solution  we  must  leave 
to  the  future.  Judging  from  what  has  already  been 
achieved,  we  can  have  no  doubt  about  what  remains 
to  be  accomplished.  The  result  is  foreshadowed  by  the 
triumphs  of  modern  exegesis,  which  give  a  positive 
assurance  that  in  God's  own  time  all  mysteries  will 
be  cleared  up,  and  that  both  science  and  Genesis  will 
eventually  render  the  same  testimony,  and  in  language 
as  clear  as  it  shall  be  unmistakable. 


Bishop  Clifford's  Theory. 

Before  closing  our  review  of  the  most  prominent 
theories  that  have  obtained  regarding  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  Mosaic  Hexaemeron  it  will  be  well  to 
say  a  few  words  of  the  now  famous  theory  advanced 
a  few  years  ago  by  the  late  English  bishop,  Clifford  of 
Clifton.  According  to  this  theory,  which  is  interme- 
diate in  character  between  the  theories  advocated  by 
the  Schools  of  Alexandria  and  those  of  Edessa  and 
Caesarea,  between  the  allegorism  of  Origen,  Clement, 
and  Athanasius  and  the  literalism  of  Ephrem,  Chrys- 
ostom,  and  Basil,  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  not 
to  be  construed  as  an  historical  narrative,  but  as  a  rit- 
/  ual  hymn.  To  quote  the  bishop's  own  words:  "The 
j  first  thirty-four  verses  of  the  Bible,  although  they  stand 
'  foremost  in  the  collection  of  the  writings  of  Moses, 
form  no  portion  of  the  book  of  Genesis  which  imme- 
diately follows  them.  They  constitute  a  composition 
complete  in  itself  They  are  a  sacred  hymn  recording 
the  consecration  of  each  day  of  the  week  to  the  mem- 


THE   MOSAIC    HEXAEMERON.  99 

ory  of  one  or  other  of  the  works  done  by  the  true  God, 
Creator  of  heaven  and  earth,  in  opposition  to  a  custom 
established  by  the  Egyptian  priests  of  referring  the 
days  of  the  week  to  the  sun,  moon,  and  planets,  and 
of  consecrating  each  day  of  the  month  to  the  memory 
of  the  actions  of  false  deities.  The  hymn,  when  exam- 
ined by  the  light  which  the  knowledge  of  the  customs 
of  Egypt,  such  as  may  at  the  present  day  be  derived 
from  the  monuments  and  records  of  that  country, 
throws  upon  it,  shows  how  carefully  its  detail  has 
been  arranged  for  the  purpose  of  guarding  against 
those  special  dangers  of  idolatry  to  which  the  Isaael- 
ites  were  exposed  at  the  time  of  their  delivery  from 
Egyptian  bondage,  thus  affording  an  indirect  but 
valuable  confirmation  of  the  fact  that  Moses  was  its 
author.  This  hymn  not  being  a  history  of  the  cre- 
ation, but  a  ritual  work,  the  statement  in  it  must  be 
interpreted  in  the  sense  in  which  similar  statements 
are  understood  when  they  occur  in  writings  of  a  rit- 
ual character.  When  it  is  said  that  certain  works  are 
performed  on  certain  days  of  the  week,  nothing  more 
is  implied  than  that  those  days  are  consecrated  to  the 
memory  of  the  work  referred  to.  Subject  to  this  pro- 
viso, the  works  of  Moses  are  to  be  understood  in  their 
usual  sense  and  present  no  special  difficulty.  A  day 
means  the  space  of  twenty-four  hours  in  this  as  in  other 
portions  of  the  writings  of  the  same  author.  By  seven 
days  are  meant  the  days  of  the  week,  which  are  sim- 
ply referred  to  as  the  first,  second,  instead  of  Sunday, 
Monday,  Tuesday,  and  so  on,  because,  all  reference 
to  the  planets  being  forbidden,  there  remains  but  the 
numerical  order  by  which  to  cite  them.  Words  de- 
scriptive of  natural  objects  and  phenomena,  such  as 


lOO  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

the  firmament,  the  deep,  the  waters  above  the  firma- 
ment, and  such  like,  mean  nothing  more  or  less  than 
what  was  implied  by  the  same  words  when  used  by  the 
wise  men  of  Egypt  in  the  days  of  Moses.  The  notions 
of  these  men  were  wrong  on  many  points  of  natural 
philosophy,  but  their  error  lay  in  the  interpretation 
they  gave  to  the  phenomena  ;  the  phenomena  them- 
selves had  a  real  existence.  The  language  of  Moses 
refers  to  the  phenomena  independently  of  any  inter- 
pretation which  may  be  given  the  same.  At  the  pres- 
ent day  we  speak  of  the  stars  shining  in  the  sky, "the 
rain  pouring  down  from  the  sky,  the  rainbow  appear- 
ing in  the  sky,  though  we  are  all  well  aware  that  the 
stars  are  removed  far  above  the  atmosphere  in  which 
the  rain  gathers  which  reflects  the  rainbow.  Thus 
understood,  the  words  of  IMoses  present  no  manner  of 
opposition  to  scientific  facts.  In  this  hymn  he  records 
two  things:  First,  that  God  created  all  things.  This 
is  a  truth  which  no  scientific  fact  can  invalidate.  Sec- 
ondly, that  each  of  the  first  six  days  of  the  week  is 
consecrated  to  some  special  work  performed  by  God, 
and  that  the  seventh  is  consecrated  to  the  rest  of  God 
and  must  be  kept  holy.  ...  As  to  the  order  in  which 
the  various  parts  of  the  creation  came  into  existence, 
and  whether  a  longer  or  shorter  period  of  time  elapsed 
before  our  earth  and  its  furniture  assumed  the  appear- 
ance they  now  present,  these  are  matters  which  form 
no  part  of  Moses'  task  to  explain.  They  enter  not  into 
his  subject,  and  he  does  not  allude  to  them,  and  there- 
fore, whatever  be  the  conclusions  which  scientific  men 
may  come  to  on  these  points,  they  meet  neither  with 
approval  nor  with  opposition  from  the  words  of  Moses. 
The  records  of  the  stages  of  the  existence  of  our  globe 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  loi 

form,  no  doubt,  a  subject  of  great  interest  to  inquirers, 
but  beyond  the  fact  that  in  the  beginning  God  created 
heaven  and  earth  no  revelation  has  been  given  to  men 
concerning  them.  They  belong  exclusively  to  the 
province  of  science.  They  are  a  part  of  that  travail 
ivhich  God  liath  given  to  the  sons  ofinen  to  be  exercised 
in  it.  He  hath  made  all  things  good  in  their  time^  and 
hath  delivered  the  world  to  their  consideration  (Eccles. 
iii.  lo,  ii)."  ^ 

Science  and  Patristic  Exegesis. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  What  is  the  use  of  all  this  dis- 
cussion where  there  are  so  many  elements  of  uncer- 
tainty? "What,"  inquires  St.  Augustine,  "is  the 
net  result  of  all  this  winnowing?  Where  is  the  good 
wheat  that  was  to  come  of  it?  You  raise  questions 
without  giving  answers.  Give  us  something  positive, 
something  conclusive." 

The  response  of  the  saint  shall  be  also  mine.  I  have 
done  all  that  in  the  present  state  of  science  and  exe- 
gesis it  is  possible  to  do.  "  I  have  shown  that  there  is 
not  a  single  declaration  of  science  that  is  contrary  to 
the  teachings  of  Moses."  ^     For  us  this  is  sufficient. 

'^Dublin  Review,  April,  1881,  pp.  330-332.  See  also  same 
Review,  Oct.,  1881,  and  Jan.  and  April,  1883. 

'•^  "  Dicet  aliquis  :  Quid  tu  tanta  tritura  dissertationis  hujus, 
quid  granorum,  exuisti  ?  Quid  eventilasti  ?  Cur  propemo- 
dum  in  quaestionibus  adhuc  latent  omnia?  Affirma  aliquid 
eorum  quae  multa  posse  intelligi  disputasti.  Cui  respondeo, 
ad  eum  ipsum  me  cibum  suaviter  pervenisse,  quo  didici  non 
haerere  homini  in  respondendo  secundum  fidem,  quod  respon- 
dendum est  hominibus  qui  calumniari  libris  nostrae  salutis 
efFectant,  ut  aliquid  ipsi  de  natura  rerum  veracitus  documentis 


I02  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

There  have,  it  is  true,  been  theories  innumerable 
which  their  authors  fondly  imagined  were  subversive 
of  the  Hexaemeron  of  Moses,  and  antagonistic,  conse- 
quently, to  the  integrity  of  Scripture;  but  there  is  not 
to-day,  any  more  than  there  was  in  the  time  of  St. 
Augustine,  a  single  fact  of  science  that  can  justly  be 
construed  as  contravening  the  system  of  cosmogony 
contained  in  Genesis  or  as  opposed  to  the  clear  and 
explicit  teachings  of  the  inspired  writer. 

I  might  here  conclude,  but  there  are  a  few  other 
facts  disclosed  by  this  long  discussion,  which  deserve 
at  least  a  passing  notice. 

The  first  of  these  facts  is  the  perfect  intellectual 
freedom  that  the  Fathers  and  Doctors  of  the  Church 
have  always  claimed  and  enjoyed  in  matters  outside  of 
positive  dogma.  This  is  particularly  observable  in  the 
discussion  and  interpretation  of  such  questions  as  the 
one  we  have  been  considering,  where  science  rather 
than  revelation  must  be  appealed  to  for  a  solution  of 
the  difficulties  encountered. 

We  have  a  striking  illustration  of  this  liberty  of 
thought  in  St.  John  Damascene,  the  last  of  the  great 
theologians  of  the  Oriental  Church.  In  matters  of 
cosmogony  he  chooses  freely  between  the  doctrines  of 
the  Syrian  and  Cappadocian  Schools.  At  one  time  he 
declares  for  St.  Ephrem,  at  another  for  St.  Basil,  and 
at  still  another  for  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  He  feels 
that  he  is  treading  on  safe  ground,  and  that  he  is  per- 
fectly free  to  select  such  opinions  as,  according  to  his 
judgment,  are  most  conformable  to  fact  and  truth. 

And  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  not  only  shows  that  he 

demonstrate  potuerint,  ostendamus  nostrivS   Litteris  non  esse 
contrarium." — De  Genesi  ad  Litteram,  lib.  i.  cap.  21. 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  103 

enjoyed  perfect  intellectual  freedom  himself,  but  also 
that  he  respected  the  opinions  of  others  and  allowed 
them  equal  liberty  of  thought.  He  does  not,  for 
instance,  in  the  disputed  questions  of  Mosaic  cosmog- 
ony insist  on  the  acceptance  of  his  own  views,  but 
modestly  declares  "I  think"  this  is  so  or  may  be  so. 
St.  Augustine,  in  referring  to  the  divers  interpreta- 
tions which  the  Genesiac  record  admits,  says:  "Let 
each  one  choose  according  to  the  best  of  his  power; 
only  let  him  not  rashly  put  forward  as  known  that 
which  is  unknown,  and  let  him  not  fail  to  remember 
that  he  is  but  a  man  searching,  as  far  as  may  be,  into 
the  works  of  God."  ^  In  another  place  he  declares 
that  "in  the  obscurities  of  natural  things  our  investi- 
gations should  be  characterized  by  hypothesis  rather 
than  by  positive  declarations — niagis  proestemus  dili- 
gentiam  inquirendi^  qiiam  affirniandi  tejnerita/cm^'''' 
and  does  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that  "rash  and  incon- 
siderate assertations  in  uncertain  and  doubtful  passages 
of  Scripture  may  easily  degenerate  into  sacrilege." 
On  every  page  of  his  works  he  inculcates  both  by  pre- 
cept and  example  the  caution  and  reserve  that  should 
be  exercised  in  the  discussion  of  disputed  questions, 
and  is  ever  ready  to  admit  in  problems  of  cosmogony 
the  necessarily  provisional  character  of  many  of  his 
explanations.  Thus,  regarding  one  of  his  theories  of 
the  days  of  Genesis,  he  tells  us  frankly  that  it  is  but 
an  attempt  to  explain  a  difficult  problem,  and  that  he 
may.  sooner  or  later  reject  it  for  another  theory.  But 
he  is  the  first  to  recognize  the  inadequateness  of  some 
of  his  hypotheses,  and  wishes  better  success  to  others.^ 

'  De  Genesi  Liber  Imperfedus,  cap.  ix.  n.  80. 

^  Fieri   enim   potest   ut   etiam   ego   aliam  (sententiani)  his 


i04  biblf,  science,  and  faith. 

Science,  Scripture,  and  Religion. 

Another  fact,  often  lost  sight  of,  is  that  when  the 
inspired  writers  of  the  Sacred  Books  make  incidental 
reference  to  natnral  phenomena  while  teaching  relig- 
ious truth,  they  accommodate  themselves  to  the  pre- 
vailing ideas  regarding  such  phenomena.  "Many 
things  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,"  says  St.  Jerome, 
"are  expressed  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  times 
in  which  they  were  written,  and  not  according  to  the 
truth."  ' 

"The  biblical  writers,"  says  Reusch,  "received 
supernatural  enlightenment  from  God,  but  the  object 
of  this  enlightenment  and  of  the  divine  revelation 
altogether  was  only  to  impart  religious  truths,  not 
profane  knowledge;  and  we  may  therefore,  without 
detracting  from  the  respect  due  to  the  holy  writers 
or  in  any  wa)'  weakening  the  doctrine  of  inspiration, 
safely  allow  that  the  biblical  writers  were  not  in  advance 
of  their  age  in  the  matter  of  profane  knowledge,  and 
consequently  of  natural  science.  The  praises  given 
by  certain  French  savants  to  the  genius  or  scientific 
knowledge  of  the  Jewish  lawgiver  because  of  the  sup- 
posed anticipation  in  Genesis  of  modern  scientific  dis- 
coveries are,  therefore,  not  to  the  purpose.  As  regards 
profane  knowledge  Moses  was  not  raised  above  his 
contemporaries  by  divine  revelation,  and  there  is  no 

divinae  Scriptufce  verbis  congruentioreni  foilassis  inveniani. 
Neque  enini  ita  hanc  confirmo  ut  aliam  quae  proponenda  sit 
inveniri  non  posse  contendam. — De  Genesi  ad  Litt.,  lib.  iv. 
cap.  28. 

*  "  Multa  in  Scripturis  Sanctis  dicuntur  juxta  opinionem 
illius  temporis,  quo  gesta  referuntur,  et  non  juxta  quod  rei 
Veritas  continebat." — JER.  xxviii.  10,  11. 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  105 

proof  whatever  of  his  being  in  a  position  to  raise  him- 
self above  them  by  his  own  thought  and  inquiry."  ^ 

"It  might,  indeed,"  declares  Cardinal  Newman, 
"have  pleased  the  Almighty  to  have  superseded  phys- 
ical inquiry  by  revealing  the  truths  which  are  its 
object,  but  He  has  not  done  so."  And  yet,  notwith- 
standing this  lack  of  revelation  in  matters  of  science, 
there  is,  and  can,  I  repeat  it,  be  no  discrepancy  between 
Genesis  and  science.  For,  "in  Holy  Scripture,"  as 
Kurtz  has  well  expressed  it,  "all  future  science  can 
find  a  place;  it  has  made  no  mistake;  no  new  science 
can  cry  out,  ''si  taaiisses.''  It  is  by  this  means  that  it 
shows  its  divine  character  in  dealing  with  questions 
of  natural  science." 

"Theology  itself,"  Father  Faber  happily  observes, 
"will  be  found  to  fit  all  discoveries  as  they  come.  It 
is  only  the  individual  theologians  who  may  sometimes 
have  to  humor  their  own  private  ideas."  ^ 

If,  then,  there  is  nothing,  and  can  be  nothing,  in 
science  that  is  antagonistic  to  faith,  still  less  is  there 
anything  about  it,  as  some  have  absurdly  fancied,  that 
is  irreligious.  On  the  contrary/" to  a  religious  mind," 
as  the  charming  writer  just  quoted  remarks,  "  phys- 
ical science  is  an  intensely  religious  thing. 'V 

"No  sight,"  he  avers,  "can  be  more  grateful  to  a 
true  theologian  than  to  behold  the  giant  strides  of 
scientific  discovery  and  the  bold  methods  of  scientific 
research.  He  has  nothing  to  fear  for  his  faith,  except 
an  embarrassment  arising  from  the  very  riches  of  its 
demonstration  which  these  discoveries  are  continually 
supplying.     Nothing  can  be  more  narrow,  vulgar,  or 

'  Bibel  unci  Natiir,  English  translation,  p.  32. 
*  The  Blessed  Sacrame7it,  p.  331. 


I06  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

stupid  than  the  idea  of  an  antithesis  between  science 
and  religion.  It  is  true  that  some  of  the  sciences,  in 
the  earlier  periods  of  their  construction,  turned  the 
heads  of  those  who  drank  at  their  fountains,  and  crude 
theories,  incompatible  with  the  dogmas  of  faith,  were 
the  result.  Yet  these  only  changed,  at  last,  to  fresh 
and  more  striking  proofs  of  the  divine  and  unalterable 
truth  of  our  holy  faith;  for  further  discovery  and  a 
larger  induction  led,  in  every  case,  to  an  abandonment 
of  the  irreligious  theory."  ... 

"Geology,  which  is  the  history  of  nature,  has  been 
regarded  as  a  science  the  cultivation  of  which  is 
especially  dangerous  to  religious  habits  of  mind.  [If 
it  be  so,  it  is  the  mind  that  is  at  fault,  and  not  the 
science.  J  The  whole  series  of  controversies  ending  in 
the  admission  of  the  extreme  modernness  of  the  pres- 
ent surface  of  the  globe  and  the  novelty  of  man  in 
creation  is  nothing  else  but  a  long  chain  of  proof  of 
the  Mosaic  narrative."  ^ 

But  if  there  is,  and  can  be,  no  antagonism  between 
Genesis  and  science — if,  on  the  contrary,  the  two,  as 
far  as  understood,  are  found  to  be  in  perfect  accord — 
there  are  difficulties  yet  unsolved.  Darkness  is  still 
upon  the  deep  mysteries  of  many  problems  of  Mosaic 
cosmogony.  The  future,  I  am  convinced,  will  do 
much  toward  dissipating  this  darkness.  The  past  his- 
tory and  present  condition  of  both  science  and  exe- 
gesis warrant  such  a  view.  But  the  perfect  exhibition 
of  all  the  hidden  harmonies  that  we  know  to  exist 
between  science  and  revelation;  the  complete  recon- 
ciliation of  the  Inspired  Record  and  the  record  of  the 
rocks;  the  Ji a/  htx  that  shall  dispel  all  the  mists  of 

'  Op.  cit.,  pp.  324-326. 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  1 07 

error  and  the  clouds  of  misinterpretation  which  now 
prevent  our  seeing  th'ings  as  they  are, — may  indeed  be 
"a  consummation  devoutly  to  be  wished,"  but  some- 
thing, most  likely/ that  ^hall  be  vouchsafed  us  only  in 
that  world  where  all  is  knowledge  and  light,  where  the 
mysteries  of  creation  shall  be  revealed  in  the  effulgence 
of  God's  glory. 


Summary  and  Conclusion. 

But  notwithstanding  the  difficulties  presented  by  the 
first  two  chapters  of  Genesis,  the  cosmogony  of  Moses 
is  the  only  one  which  antiquity  has  left  us  that  can 
claim   our   assent  or  challenge   the   investigation   of 

'  science.  There  may  be  passages  in  it  which  do  not  at 
present  admit  of  a  satisfactory  explanation,  but  there 

I  is  nothing  involving  contradiction,    and  still  less  is 

!  there  aught  that  can  be  pronounced  an  absurdity. 
Compared  with  the  other  cosmogonies  of  the  ancient 

I  world,  it  is  absolutely  peerless,  and  is  as  far  above 
them  as  history  is  above  fiction,  as  truth  above  false- 
hood. Science  may  not  unravel  the  knotty  problems 
which  still  abound,  but  it  cannot  gainsay  what  Moses 
declares.      Where  there   is   apparent  discord  we  are, 

j  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  certain  that  there  is 

!  perfect  harmony. 

It  is  Only  when  we  contrast  the  Mosaic  account  of 
creation  with  the  cosmogonies  of  the  more  advanced 
nations  of  antiquity  that  we  can  realize  how  remark- 
able the  declarations  of  the  Hebrew  lawgiver  really 
are,  and  how  he  has  answered  questions  before  which 
pagan  philosophy  stood  mute  and  impotent. 

The   Aryans   of  early   India   surprise   us   by   their 


I08  BIBLE,  SCIENCE,  AND  FAITH. 

achievements  in  literature,  science,  and  art.  Since 
their  discovery,  in  the  last  century,  the  Vedas  and 
codes  of  laws  of  the  ancient  Hindu  have  been  the  sub- 
jects of  wonder  and  enthusiastic  comment  by  scholars 
the  world  over.  But  Hindu  philosophy  never  arose  to 
a  true  conception  of  the  one  God.  The  Brahmin, 
wherever  found,  meditating  on  the  banks  of  the  Indus 
or  the  Jumna,  or  officiating  in  the  temples  of  Delhi 
and  Benares,  was  an  idolater  who  entertained  the  most 
grotesque  notions  regarding  the  origin  and  configura- 
tion of  the  world. 

The  geogonies  and  cosmogonies  of  Assyria  and  Baby- 
lonia were  scarcely  less  extravagant  and  absurd  than 
were  those  of  India.  Recent  discoveries  have  shown 
that  the  peoples  of  Mesopotamia  had  attained  a  degree 
of  civilization  that  would  not  have  been  credited  a  few 
decades  ago.  The  arts  and  sciences  were  cultivated 
with  ardor,  and  libraries  were  found  in  all  the  prin- 
cipal cities  of  Mesopotamia.  Her  philosojDhers  were 
famed  for  their  wisdom,  and  the  astronomers  of  Nine- 
veh and  Babylon  could  predict  eclipses  and  determine 
the  courses  of  the  heavenly  bodies  with  a  degree  of 
precision  that,  considering  the  rude  instruments  at 
their  disposal,  is  nothing  short  of  marvellous.  But 
the  gods  of  Assyria  and  Babylonia  were  but  blocks 
of  clay  and  stone  variously  fashioned  by  the  hand  of 
man,  and  the  peoples  inhabiting  the  valleys  of  the 
Tigris  and  the  Euphrates  were  as  far  from  a  know- 
ledge of  the  true  God,  the  Creator  of  all  things  out 
of  nothing,  as  were  the  philosophical  Brahmins  who 
taught  and  speculated  beyond  the  Himalayas. 

What  has  been  said  of  India  and  Mesopotamia  may 
be  iterated  with  even  greater  truth  of  the  land  of  the 


THE   MOSAIC   HEXAEMERON.  109 

Pharaohs.  To  Egypt  even  the  greatest  of  the  philos- 
ophers of  Greece  went  in  quest  of  knowledge,  and 
many  of  the  doctrines  which  they  afterward  taught 
their  disciples  were  learned  from  the  priests  in  the 
temples  of  Memphis  and  Heliopolis. 

Her  ruins,  scattered  all  along  the  Nile  Valley  from 
Ipsambul  to  Alexandria,  are  even  now,  after  the  lapse 
of  thousands  of  years,  the  admiration  of  all  who  be- 
hold them.  Philse,  Thebes,  and  Abydos,  great  in 
decay,  are,  like  the  Pyramids  of  Gizeh,  the  best 
evidence  of  the  greatness  and  genius  of  the  people 
who  could  plan  and  execute  such  marvels.  But  the 
builders  of  Cheops  and  tlie  designers  and  constructors 
of  the  Ramesseum  and  the  Serapeum  of  IMeuiphis,  and 
the  teachers  of  the  sages  of  Greece,  deified  the  river 
that  brought  fertility  to  their  land,  and  worshipped 
not  only  the  animals  that  grazed  in  the  valley  of  the 
Nile,  but  even  the  reptiles  that  crawled  in  its  slime 
and  the  leeks  and  onions  which  grew  in  its  gardens. 

"  Crocodilon  adorat 
Pars  hgec,  ilia  pavet  saturam  serpentibus  ibin. 
Effigies  sacri  nitet  aurea  cercopitheci, 

Illic  aeluros,  liic  piscem  fluminis,  ilHc 
Oppida  tota  canem  venerantxtr,  nemo  Dianarri. 
Porruni  et  cepe  nefas  violare  et  frangere  morsu: 
O  sanctas  gentes,  quibus  haec  nascuntur  in  hortis 
Numina!"  ^ 


^  "The  snake-devouring  ibis  these  enshrine, 
Those  think  the  crocodile  alone  divine ; 
Others  .... 

Set  up  a  glittering  brute  of  uncouth  shape 
And  bow  before  the  image  of  an  ape ! 
Thousands  regard  the  hound  with  holy  fear, 
Not  one,  Diana;  and  'tis  dangerous  here 


I  lO  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

Nor  was  Greece,  immortal  Greece,  the  home  of  art, 
eloquence,  poesy,  of  science,  history,  and  philosophy, 
exempt  from  the  errors  and  vagaries  which  were  so 
characteristic  of  the  great  nations  of  the  Orient.  For 
thousands  of  years  her  art  has  been  the  art  of  the 
world,  her  literature  the  literature  of  the  world,  her 
philosophy  the  philosophy  of  the  world.  The  culture 
of  the  world,  the  taste  of  the  world,  the  sestheticism 
of  the  world,  come  to  us  from  the  land  of  Plato  and 
Aristotle,  Phidias  and  Sophocles,  Pericles  and  Demos- 
thenes. For  thousands  of  years  she  has  been  the  inspi- 
ration of  scholars  in  every  clime,  and  has  contributed 
to  the  advancement  of  knowledge  in  every  department 
of  human  research.  From  the  Academy  and  the 
Lyceum  human  genius  winged  its  loftiest  flight,  and 
while  soaring  aloft  in  the  blue  emp)rean  surveyed 
the  fairest  domains  of  human  thought.  For  thirty 
centuries  the  Greek  mind  has  directed  the  meditations 
of  the  philosopher  and  controlled  the  speculations  of 
the  man  of  science.  Her  sculptured  marbles  have 
been  the  despair  of  all  subsequent  artists,  as  the  Par- 
thenon, although  in  ruins,  still  remains  a  dream  of 
unsurpassed  loveliness.  But  the  noblest  productions 
of  this  great  land,  from  the  matchless  poems  of  her 
sightless  bard  to  the  most  exquisite  carving  that  ever 
graced  the  Acropolis,  were  tinctured  with  false  views 
of  God,  and  were  designed  to  perpetuate  a  system  of 
religion  and  foster  a  form  of  idolatry  that  would  for 

To  violate  an  onion,  or  to  stain 
The  sanctity  of  leeks  with  tooth  profane. 
O  holy  nations!  sacrosanct  abodes  ! 
Where  every  garden  propagates  its  gods." 

Juvenal,  SaL  xv.,  vers.  2  et  seq. 


THE    MOSAIC   HEXA'EMERON.  m 

ever  preclude  man  from  having  just  notions  of  the  Cre- 
ator of  the  universe  or  of  His  relations  toward  His 
creatures.  Polytheism  of  the  most  ridiculous  charac- 
ter dominated  in  Greece,  and  systems  of  cosmogony 
the  most  fantastical  contended  for  supremacy  in  the 
greatest  schools  of  an  otherwise  enlightened  people. 

And  so  it  was  with  Rome,  imperial  Rome,  the  con- 
queror of  the  world.  The  architectural  wonders  of 
Athens  are  reproduced  in  the  City  of  the  Seven  Hills; 
the  golden  eloquence  of  Cicero  recalls  the  burning 
philippics  of  Demosthenes;  in  the  noble  epic  of  Virgil 
we  recognize  the  sublime  inspiration  of  the  Muse  of 
Homer.  But  the  gods  of  the  Pantheon  are  the  gods 
of  Greece,  reinforced  by  countless  accessions  from  the 
temples  of  all  the  lands  in  which  the  Roman  eagle  had 
been  carried,  and  in  which  Roman  legions  had  been 
triumphant.  Lucretius  embalms  in  elegant  verse  the 
teachings  of  Epicurus;  the  myths  of  Hesiod  are 
repeated  by  the  author  of  the  Metamorphoses^  and  all 
the  errors  of  Greek  philosophy  are  rehearsed  in  patri- 
cian villas  and  in  the  palaces  of  the  Caesars. 

How  different  the  doctrines  of  the  legislator  of 
Israel  !  With  a  few  bold  strokes  he  gives  us  a  pic- 
ture of  the  history  of  creation,  and  in  a  few  simple 
words  he  tells  its  how  in  the  beginning  God  created 
heaven  and  earth.  There  is  no  doubt,  no  vacillation, 
in  the  mind  of  the  author  of  Genesis,  no  obscurity  in 
his  statements  regarding  the  creative  acts  of  Jehovah. 
In  a  single  sentence  he  condemns  the  dualism  of  the 
Eastern  sage  and  the  doctrine  of  the  eternity  of  mat- 
ter of  the  Greek  Sophist.  At  the  same  time  he  brushes 
aside  numberless  other  errors  in  philosophy  and  theol- 
ogy, and   prepares  the  mind  for  a  conception  of  the 


112  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

Deity  that  even  the  greatest  of  the  pagan  philosophers 
never  attained. 

In  the  cosmogony  of  Moses  we  have  manifested  in 
every  line   the  spirit   of  revelation.     Moses   answers 
questions  that  the  wise  men  of  the  ancient  Gentile 
world  had  essayed  in  vain,  because  he  is  inspired.     He 
declares  the  truth,  because  he  is  preserved  from  error 
by  the  Spirit  of  God.     Only  in  his  history  of  creation 
does  reason  find  a  satisfactory  response  to  the  queries 
suggested  by  the  very  existence  of  the  visible  universe, 
and  in  Genesis  alone  have  we  a  cosmogony  that  is  in 
accord  with  all    the   certain  declarations  of  science. 
I  Infidel  sciolism  may  reject  the  Mosaic  account  of  cre- 
\  ation,  and  endeavor  to  offer  a  substitute,  but  all  such 
/  attempts  are  sure  to  prove  futile  and  to  issue  in  con- 
\  tradictions  and  absurdities.     Physical  science  cannot 
tell  us  anything  about   creation,  cannot  tell  us  any- 
thing about  the  beginning  of  things.     Neither  can  it 
clear  up  the  mystery  enveloping  the  origin  of  life,  nor 
show  us  matter,  as  the  great  Cuvier  happily  expresses 
:   it,  s^ organisaiit.     Before  Moses  atheistic  materialism 
and  pantheistic  idealism,   so  characteristic  of  pagan 
philosophy  and  pagan  religion,  go  down  as  the  pigmy 
before  the  giant,  and  the  deification  of  nature  is  seen 
in  all  its  hideousness  and  inconsistency. 

And  the  declarations  of  ]\Ioses  remain  the  same 
whatever  theories  we  may  have  regarding  the  inspira- 
tion of  Genesis  or  the  sources  from  which  the  history 
of  creation  was  drawn.  Is  Genesis,  as  we  now  have 
it,  revealed  or  inspired? — that  is,  is  the  narrative  a 
direct  revelation  in  its  entirety  or  is  it  simply  a  human 
tradition,  the  most  ancient  of  our  race,  collected  and 
used  by  writers  who  were  inspired  by  the  Spirit  of 


THE    MOSAIC   IIEXAEMERON. 


113 


Truth?     Is  the  inspiration  verbal,  or  does  it  extend 
only    to    the    subject-matter    of    the    text  ?      Does   it 
include  all  the  obiter  dicta  of  the  narrative,  or  does  it 
embrace  only  objects  of  faith  and  morals,  and  obtain, 
to  use  the  words  of  the  Council  of  Trent  regarding  the 
true  sense  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,   only   "  z;^  rebus 
fidei  et  monim^  ad  csdijicationem  doctrincF  CJiristiance 
pertincntiiim''''  ?     Did  Moses  make  use  of  traditions 
that  were  the  common  property  of  all  the  peoples  of 
Western  Asia,  and  was  the  inspiration  under  which  he 
wrote  limited  to  inerrancy  only  in  the  employment  of 
the  materials  at  hand   and  in  the   elimination  from 
them  of  the  imperfections  with  which  they  abounded? 
Did  he  have  at  his  disposal  a  primitive  tradition,  inte- 
gral and  unaltered,  brought  by  xAbraham  from  Ur  of 
the  Chaldees?  or  did  he  avail  himself  of  other,  it  may 
be  older,  traditions — or  legends  even — that  were  cur- 
rent among  the  Accadians  and  Sumerians,  who  were 
the  precursors  of  the  Chaldeans  and  Assyrians  in  the 
valleys  and  on  the  plains  of  Mesopotamia?     And  if  he 
used  human  documents,  were  they  then  encumbered 
with  the  exuberant  polytheism  of  Chaldea,   and  viti- 
ated by  the  clumsy  anthropomorphism  that  was   so 
prevalent  among  all  the  pagan  nations  of  antiquity? 
Are  we  to  understand  that  in  such  an  event  inspiration 
meant  simply  the  action  of  the  Holy  Ghost  whereby 
Moses  was  able  to  substitute  monotheism  for  polythe- 
ism, and  convert  a  narrative  replete  with  the  grossest 
natural    notions    into   a   compendium    of    moral   and 
dogmatic  verities  of  the   most   exalted  spiritual  cha- 
racter?^ 

'  I  have  purposely  abstained,  as  beside  1113^  purpose,  from  any 
reference  to  the  discussion  which  has  so  long  obtained  regarding 


114  BIBLE,    SCIENCE,   AND    FAITH. 

Such  are  a  few  of  the  questions  asked  by  modern 
science  and  the  Higher  Criticism,  and  suggested  by  the 
Assyrio-Chaldean  investigations  of  these  latter  days. 
So  far  as  the  contention  of  this  paper  is  concerned  the 
answers  are  immaterial.  Affirmative  or  negative,  the 
statements  of  the  author  of  the  Hexaemeron  convey 
the  same  meaning  and  proclaim  the  same  truths. 
Whatever  the  responses  eventually  given  to  the  ques- 
tions propounded,  it  will  ever  remain  an  incontestable 
fact  that  the  "theodicy  of  the  Chaldean  tablets  is  as 
far  from  that  of  the  Pentateuch  as   the   theodicy  of 

the  composite  character  of  the  Genesiac  narrative  of  creation. 
Whether  the  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis  were  written  by  Moses 
or  by  some  one  else — whether  the  date  of  their  composition  cor- 
responds to  that  assigned  by  the  traditional  view  or  whether 
it  is  much  later — matters  not  so  far  as  m\'  thesis  is  concerned. 
Neither  does  it  matter  whether  there  are  two  accounts — the 
Jehovistic  and  Elohistic — incorporated  into  the  narrative,  as 
critics  contend,  or  whether  the  story  is  the  production,  not 
compilation,  of  but  a  single  author.  The  words  Elohim  and 
Yahveh  ma}-  have  all  the  significance  the  Higher  Criticism 
claims  for  them  ;  Genesis  may  have  been  written  at  a  far  later 
date  than  has  usuall}'  been  believed  ;  it  may  have  been  the 
joint  work  of  several  writers  ;  but,  even  if  these  assumptions 
be  granted,  they  in  no  wise  militate  against  the  conclusions 
I  have  drawn  respecting  the  character  of  the  cosmogonj'  which 
a  vague  tradition  ascribes  to  Moses.  Other  writers  as  well  as 
the  Hebrew  lawgiver  wrote  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
[  Spirit,  and  even  if  Moses  had  no  part  whatever  in  the  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch — which  is  to  be  proven — the  position  I 
have  taken  respecting  the  cosmogony  of  Genesis  would  remain 
unchanged.  It  would  still  be  all  that  I  have  asserted  for  it, 
and  its  author  or  authors,  whoever  they  were,  would  still  be 
entitled  to  all  the  encomiums  bestowed  on  Moses,  and  the  first 
two  chapters  of  Genesis  would  still  be  as  manifestl3'  as  ever 
the  product  of  Divine  inspiration. 


THE   MOSAIC    IIEXAEMERON.  II5 

the    Maliabliarata  or  of  the  Theogony  of   Hesiod  is 
from  that  of  the  Gospel. 

The  Mosaic  Hexaemeron  is,  then,  proof  against  all 
attacks  that  may  be  directed  against  it  in  the  name  of 
modern  science,  Assyriology,  or  the  Higher  Criticism. 
It  alone  of  all  the  cosmogonies  of  the  ancient  world 
has  withstood  the  onslaughts  of  flippant  skeptics  and 
blatant  Rationalists,  because  it  alone  has  fully  satisfied 
the  demands  of  the  intellect  and  the  aspirations  of  the 

<    soul.     What  pagan  philosophy  ever  failed  to  do,  what 

/  modern  science,   of  itself,   is  incompetent  to  achieve, 
the  author  of  Genesis  has  realized  in  his  simple  yet 

/  magnificent  portrayal  of  God  as  Deum  tiniun^  Deum 
\  \  omnipoteiitem^  Deum  creatorem  omnium  visibilium  et 

\  invisibilium. 


PART  II. 
Ubc  IRoacbian  WcIxxqc, 


PART   II. 
Ube  IRoacbian  Delude, 

CHAPTER  I. 

the  geographical  and  zoological  universal- 
ity of  the  deluge. 

Widespread  Interest  in  the  Question. 

BARRING  the  creation  of  the  world  and  of  man, 
it  may  be  questioned  if  any  event  recorded  in 
the  Old  Testament  has  given  rise  to  more  commen- 
taries and  provoked  more  discussion  than  the  terrible 
cataclysm  recorded  with  such  minuteness  of  detail  in 
the  seventh  chapter  of  Genesis.  The  Fathers  in  their 
interpretations  of  the  inspired  volume,  and  the  School- 
men in  their  ponderous  tomes,  devoted  entire  treatises 
to  the  consideration  of  the  subject.  The  exegetists 
who  succeeded  the  Schoolmen  found  the  question  of 
the  Deluge  no  less  interesting,  and,  judging  from  the 
space  they  gave  to  the  discussion  of  the  subject,  they 
considered  its  elucidation  of  prime  importance.  With 
scarcely  a  dissenting  voice  the  Fathers,  the  Schoolmen, 
and  the  exegetists  who  immediately  followed  them  were 
at  one  regarding  the  universality  of  the  catastrophe 
of  which  the  Sacred  Text  gives  such  a  vivid  record. 

119 


I20  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

The  words  of  the  Bible  were  taken  literally,  and  the 
almost  general  consensus  of  opinion  among  theolo- 
gians and  commentators  was  that  the  Deluge  was 
universal,  not  only  in  relation  to  mankind,  but  also 
in  reference  to  the  earth's  surface.  The  words  de- 
scribing the  great  cataclysm  seemed  to  be  so  clear 
and  so  explicit  as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  doubt, 
and  among  all  classes,  as  well  as  with  theologians  and 
commentators,  it  was  the  generally  received  opinion — 
[an  opinion  that  with  many  differed  but  little  from  an 
'article  of  faith — an  opinion  that  could  not  be  called 
in  question  by  any  consistent  believer  in  the  divine 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  without  seemingly  going 
counter  to  the  teachings  of  the  Church — that  the 
Flood  prevailed  over  the  whole  earth  and  destroyed 
all  the  human  race  except  the  eight  persons  who  were 
in  the  ark  with  Noah. 


Fossils  as  Witnesses  of  the  Universality  of 
THE  Deluge. 

Fossil  shells  found  on  plain  and  mountain  were 
appealed  to  as  certain  evidences  of  the  extent  and 
magnitude  of  the  Deluge.  Fossils  found  imbedded 
in  the  solid  rock,  in  marl-beds,  and  in  gravel-pits 
gave  strength  to  the  argument  derived  from  shells 
scattered  over  the  earth's  surface. 

Woodward,  an  English  geologist  who  wrote  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  centur>^,  imagined  "the 
whole  terrestrial  globe  to  have  been  taken  to  pieces 
and  dissolved  at  the  Flood,  and  the  strata  to  liave  set- 
tled down  from  this  promiscuous  mass  as  any  earthy 
sediment  from  a  fluid."     And  to  bolster  up  his  fan- 


THE    NOACHIAN   DELUGE.  12 1 

cifitl  hypothesis  he  went  so_  far  as  to  declare,  contrary 
to  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  that  "  marine  bodies  are 
lodged  in  the  strata  according  to  the  order  of  their 
gravity,  the  heavier  shells  in  stone,  the  lighter  in 
chalk,  and  so  of  the  rest." 

Thomas  Burnet,  a  contemporary  of  Woodward,  en- 
tertained still  more  extravagant  views.  In  his  TeUiuHs 
Theoria  Sacra^  or  "Sacred  Theory  of  the  Earth" — 
a  work  which  attracted  widespread  attention  at  the 
time — he  explained  why  the  primeval  earth  enjoyed  a 
perpetual  spring  before  the  Flood,  showed  how  the 
crust  of  the  globe  was  fissured  by  the  sun's  rays,  so 
that  it  burst,  and  thus  the  diluvial  waters  were  let 
loose  from  a  supposed  central  abyss. 

At  the  same  time,  William  Whiston,  at  first  the 
deputy  and  subsequently  the  successor  of  Sir  Isaac 
Newton  in  the  chair  of  mathematics  at  Cambridge, 
published  his  Neiv  Theory  of  the  Earthy  wherein  he 
discussed  the  universal  Deluge  from  a  new  standpoint. 
He  attributed  the  Flood  to  the  near  approach  to  the 
earth  of  a  comet,  "and  the  condensation  of  the  vapor 
of  its  tail  into  water."  Having  ascribed  an  increase 
of  the  waters  to  this  source,  he  adopted  Woodward's 
theory,  supposing  all  stratified  deposits  to  have  result- 
ed from  the  "chaotic  sediment  of  the  Flood."  ^ 

These  physico-theological  systems  of  the  English 
cosmologists  were  refuted  and  ridiculed  by  Vallisneri, 
Moro,  and  the  Carmelite  friar  Generelli,  who  are  justly 
regarded  as  the  ablest  exponents  of  the  science  of 
geology  during  the  first  decades  of  the  eighteenth 
century. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  researches  and  discoveries 
*  Cf.  lyyell's  Priticiples  of  Geology,  vol.  i.  chap.  iii. 


122  BIBLE,  SCIENCE,  AND  FAITH. 

of  the  Italian  school  of  geologists,   so  prevalent  was 

the  notion  that  fossils,  wherever  found,  were  the  result 

,  of  Noah's  Deluge  that  Voltaire,  "in  his  anxiety  to 

I  shake  the   popular   belief  in    the  universal    Deluge, 

endeavored    to    inculcate    scepticism    as   to   the   real 

nature  of  fossil  shells,  and  to  recall  from  contempt 

the   exploded   dogma  of   the   sixteenth   century  that 

)  they  were  sports  of  nature." 

I  To  Voltaire,  Bernard  Palissy,  who  was  the  first  one 
\  in  France  to  promulgate  true  notions  respecting  the 
nature  of  fossil  shells,  was  but  a  visionary  whose 
theories  were  both  ridiculous  and  absurd.  The  views 
of  the  Italian  geologists,  as  well  as  those  of  Palissy, 
he  dismissed  with  a  sneer  or  a  simple  expression  of 
undisguised  contempt.  At  best  they  gave  him  but 
little  concern.  It  was  against  the  popular  views  ad- 
vocated by  Woodward,  Burnet,  Whiston,  and  their 
school — views  which  obtained  not  only  in  England, 
but  also  in  France  and  Germany  as  well — that  he 
directed  all  the  resources  of  his  genius  and  all  the 
force  of  his  sarcastic  and  sophistical  pen. 

"The  Scriptures,"  says  the  "Sage  of  Ferney," 
"tell  us  that  there  was  a  Deluge,  but  there  is  appar- 
ently no  other  monument  of  it  on  the  earth  but  the 
memory  of  a  terrible  prodigy  which  warns  us,  but  in 
vain,  to  be  just."  In  his  estimation  it  is  but  a  fable, 
like  the  deluges  of  Deucalion  and  Ogyges,  and  this, 
forsooth,  because  there  is  no  record  of  such  an  inunda- 
tion in  the  writings  of  Herodotus  or  Thucydides. 

Rather  than  give  credence  to  the  Bible,  and  rather 
than  accept  the  scriptural  narrative  of  the  Deluge  as 
then  interpreted,  the  great  infidel  had  recourse  to  the 
silliest  and  most  puerile  explanations  of  the  nature 


THE   NOACHIAN   DELUGE.  1 23 

and  occurrence  of  those  countless  and  widespread  wit- 
nesses (as  was  currently  taught)  of  a  great  catastrophe 
— the  fossils  which  were  everywhere  so  abundant. 

He  did  not  hesitate  to  revive  the  exploded  view  that 
fossils  were  but  lusiis  uaturcE — mere  sports  of  nature  ' 
due  to  the  plastic  power  of  the  earth  itself  He  was 
ready  even  to  credit  a  story  which  was  circulated  about 
fossil  shells  having  been  experimentally  produced  in  a 
certain  soft  stone — dans  une  pierre  tendre — or  to  be- 
lieve that  marine  shells  were  produced  in  fresh-water 
lakes  of  the  existence  of  which  there  was  not  a  scin- 
tilla of  evidence. 

His  views  regarding  ammonites  are  as  amusing  as 
they  are  far-fetched.  "Reptiles,"  he  informs  us, 
"almost  always  form  a  spiral  when  not  in  motion; 
and  it  is  not  surprising  that  when  they  petrify  they 
should  assume  the  form  of  a  volute.  More  natural 
still  is  it  to  conceive  that  certain  stones  spontaneously 
assume  a  spiral  form.  The  iVlps  and  the  Vosges  are 
full  of  them.  These  are  what  naturalists  denominate 
cornua  Am^nonis.''''  ^ 

'In  his  Dictionaire  philosophique,  article  "Coquilles,"  he 
asks  :  "  Est  on  bien  sur  que  le  sol  de  la  terre  ne  pent  enfanter 
ces  fossiles  ?  La  formation  des  agates  arborisees  ne  doit-elle 
pas  nous  faire  suspendre  notre  jugement  ?  Un  arbre  n'a 
point  produit  I'agate  qui  represente  parfaitement  un  arbre  ; 
la  mer  pent  aussi  n' avoir  point  produit  ces  coquilles  fossiles 
qui  ressemblent  a  des  habitations  de  petits  animaux  niarins." 

"^  Les  reptiles  forment  presque  toujours  une  spirale,  lor^- 
qu'ils  ne  sont  pas  en  mouvement ;  et  il  n'est  pas  surpremant 
que  quand  ils  se  petrifient,  la  pierre  prenne  la  figure  informe 
d'une  volute.  II  est  encore  plus  naturel  qu'il  y  ait  des  pierres 
formes  d'elles  niemes  en  spirales  :  les  Alpes,  les  Vosges  en  sont 
pleines.     II  a  plu  aux  naturalistes  d'appeler  ces  pierres  des 


124  BIBLE,    SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

The  fossil  remains  of  a  reindeer  and  a  liippopotamus 
which  were  discovered  near  Etanipes,  and  which  ex- 
cited a  great  deal  of  discnssion  at  the  time,  found  a 
simple  explanation  at  the  hands  of  Voltaire.  They 
were  simply  specimens  which  had  strayed  from  the 
collection  of  some  naturalist — skeletons  "^?^'?/«  curieux 
avail  eu  autrefois  dan  son  cabinet. ' ' 

As  a  result  of  his  examination  of  the  faluns  of 
Touraine,  situated  over  a  hundred  miles  from  the 
sea,  Palissy  proved  that  the  marl  there  found  was 
composed  of  pulverized  marine  shells.  This  indi- 
cated that  .the  site  now  occupied  by  the  faluns  was 
formerly  under  the  ocean.  This  to  Voltaire  was  ab- 
surd. He  sent  for  a  box  of  the  marl  in  order  that 
he  might  examine  it  personally.  As  a  result  of  his 
inspection  he  declares:  "It  is  certain,  as  far  as  my 
eyes  can  give  certitude,  that  this  marl  is  a  species  of 
earth,  and  not  a  conglomeration  of  marine  animals 
numbering  more  than  a  hundred  thousand  milliard 
milliard."  ' 

The  fossil  oyster-shells  found  in  the  Alps  were, 
according  to  Voltaire,  but  the  shells  of  fresh-water 
mussels.  He  was  positive  in  maintaining,  in  the 
face  of  innumerable  facts  to  the  contrary,  that  ma- 
rine shells  are  always  found  near  the  ocean  or  on 
level  plans  but  little  above  sea-level,  but  never  at  high 
altitudes,  especially  on  the  top  of  high  mountains. 

When  he  was  told  that  petrified  fish  had  been  found 

comes  d'Ammon. — Dissertation  sur  les  Oiangements  arrivh 
dans  Notre  Globe,  Envoyee  a  V Academic  de  Boulogne.  CEuvres 
completes  de  M.  de  Voltaire,  Paris,  Sanson  et  Cie.,  1792,  vol. 

43-  P-  131- 

•  Op.  cit.,  vol.  55,  p.  330. 


/  THE   NOACHIAN   DELUGE.  1 25 

/ 

in  the  mountains  of  Germany  and  Switzerland,  he  an- 
swered at  once  that  their  presence  there  could  easily 
be  accounted  for.  They  were  but  fish  which  a  trav- 
eller had  taken  with  him,  which,  becoming  spoiled, 
were  thrown  away  and  were  subsequently  petrified."  * 

New  difficulties,  however,  multiplied  in  rapid  suc- 
cession. Countless  shells  were  found  in  Italy  and 
France  and  round  about  Mont  Cenis,  which,  it  was 
claimed,  resembled  those  occurring  in  the  eastern 
Mediterranean.  But,  nothing  daunted,  Voltaire,  as 
usual,  had  an  answer  to  his  hand,  but  such  an  answer 
as  only  one  reduced  to  the  narrowest  straits  would 
ever  think  of  giving. 

The  great  infidel  was  leading  a  forlorn  hope  in  his 
attack  on  geology  and  the  Bible:  the  teachings  of  the 
two  were  one  as  then  understood,  but  this  he  would 
never  admit.  He  was  intent  on  discrediting  the  Bible, 
on  relegating  to  the  domain  of  fable  the  Genesiac  nar- 
rative of  the  Flood,  and  to  attain  his  end  he  employed 
arguments  that  were  as  ludicrous  as  they  were  irra- 
tional. 

His  attempts  at  explaining  the  occurrence  of  marine 
shells  resembling  those  found  in  the  Syrian  sea  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  Alps  are  so  characteristic  of  the 
methods  of  Voltaire,  and  his  style  of  argumentation 
generally,  that  I  give  at  length  what  he  says  on  this 
topic. 

"There  have,"  he  says,  "been  found  in  the  prov- 
inces of  Italy,  France,  and  elsewhere  small  shells 
which,  we  are  assured,  originally  came  from  the  sea 
of  Syria.  I  do  not  wish  to  call  their  origin  in  ques- 
tion; but  should  we  not  bear  in  mind  that  those  count- 
*  Op.  cit.,  vol.  43,  p.  331. 


126  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

less  hosts  of  pilgrims  and  Crusaders  who  carried  their 
money  to  the  Holy  Land  brought  back  shells  on  their 
return  ?  Or  should  we  prefer  to  believe  that  the  sea 
of  Jaifa  and  Sidon  at  one  time  overflowed  Burgundy 
and  Milan?"  ' 

Elsewhere  he  expresses  himself  as  follows:  "Is  it 
altogether  a  fantastical  idea  to  reflect  on  the  immense 
crowds  of  pilgrims  who  travelled  afoot  from  St.  James 
in  Galicia,  and  from  all  the  provinces,  to  Rome  by  way 
of  Mont  Cenis,  carrying  shells  on  their  caps?  They 
came  from  Syria,  from  Egypt,  from  Greece,  as  well  as 
from  Poland  and  Austria.  The  number  of  those  who 
thus  went  to  Rome  was  a  thousand  times  greater  than 
was  that  of  those  who  visited  Mecca  and  Medina, 
because  the  roads  to  Rome  are  better  and  the  trav- 
ellers were  not  forced  to  go  in  caravans.  In  a  word, 
an  oyster  near  Mont  Cenis  does  not  prove  that  the 
Indian  Ocean  has  enveloped  all  the  lands  of  our 
hemisphere."^ 

But  when,  later  on,  the  bones  of  man  were  discov- 
ered in  many  of  the  caverns  of  Etirope,  it  was  thought, 

*  Op.  cit.,  vol.  43,  p.  132. 

■^  This  is  such  a  typical  specimen  of  Voltairean  reasoning 
that  I  reproduce  the  original :  "  Est-ce  d'ailleurs  une  idee  tout- 
a-fait  romanesque  de  faire  reflexion  a  la  foule  innonibrable  de 
pelerins  qui  partaient  a  pied  de  St.  Jacques  en  Galice  et  de 
toutes  les  provinces  pour  aller  a  Rome  par  le  Mont  Cenis, 
chargees  de  coquilles  a  leur  bonnets  ?  II  en  venait  de  Syrie, 
d'Egypte,  de  Grece,  comme  de  Polonge  et  d'Autriche.  Le 
nonibre  de  Romipetes  a  ete  mille  fois  plus  considerable  que 
celui  des  hagi  qui  out  visite  la  Mecque  et  M6dine,  parce  que 
les  chemins  de  Rome  sont  plus  faciles,  et  qu'on  n'etait  pas 
force  d'aller  par  caravanes.  En  un  mot,  une  huitre  pres  de 
Mont  Cenis  ne  prouve  pas  que  I'ocean  Jndien  ait  enveloppe 
toutes  les  terres  de  notre  hemisphere." — Op.  cit.,  vol.  55,  p.  312. 


THE   NOACHIAN   DELUGE. 


127 


by  those  who  argued  that  the  Deluge  was  universal, 
that  the  question  was  put  beyond  further  discussion. 
Even  such  a  distinguished  geologist  as  Buckland  saw 
in  these  remains  of  early  man  the  relics  of  a  universal 
Deluge — reliqiiicB  Dihiviance — and  the  majority  of 
scientific  men  of  his  day  were  disposed  to  accept  his 
conclusions  as  correct,  and  to  consider  the  universality 
of  the  biblical  Deluge  as  one  of  the  demonstra:ted  facts 
of  geology.  Indeed,  so  anxious  were  some  of  those 
who  were  interested  in  making  the  Sacred  Text  square 
with  their  preconceived  notions  regarding  the  nature 
and  extent  of  the  Flood  that  they  saw  a  witness  of 
the  Deluge — testis  diluvia — in  a  fossil  that  long  passed 
as  the  skeleton  of  a  man,  but  which  more  exact  inves- 
tigation proved  to  be  the  remains  of  an  extinct  sala- 
mander. The  Andrias  ScheiicJizeri — such  was  the 
name  given  this  relic  of  an  extinct  form  of  animal 
life — will  always  remain  a  monument  to  the  credulity 
and  the  unguarded  zeal  of  those  who  were  too  hasty 
in  jumping  at  conclusions  that  were  not  justified  by 
the  facts  on  which  they  were  made  to  repose. 

Whether  there  are  now  any  geological  traces  of  the 
Noachian  Deluge  is  doubtful. •  .  Even  granting  that 
the  Flood  covered  the  whole  earth,  as  some  still  con- 
tend, it  is  highly  improbable  that  the  changes  effected 
on  the  earth's  surface  would  have  been  of  such  a  cha- 
racter as  to  be  recognized  so  many  ages  after  the  event. 

'  See,  however,  The  Origin  of  the  World,  p.  256  and  Modern 
Science  and  Bible  Lands,  chapters  iii.  and  iv.,  by  Sir  J.  W. 
Dawson.  Compare  also  Howorth's  two  masterly  works — The 
Mammoth  and  the  Flood  and  The  Glacial  Nightmare  and  t/ie 
Flood.  See  also  Professor  Prestwich  on  the  same  topic  in  The 
Bulleti?t  0/  the   Victoria  Institute,  April,  1894. 


128  lilliLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

/ 

The  late  Abbe  ]\Ioigno,  who  defended  to  the  last  day  of 
/  his  life  the  geographical  universality  of  the  Deluge, 
in  referring  to  this  matter  expresses  himself  as  fol- 
lows: "We  refuse  to  accept  as  evidence  of  the  Deluge 
not  only  the  ancient  deposits  of  shells  which  existed 
before  it,  and  which  it  could  not  have  produced,  but 
also  the  presence  in  our  part  of  the  world  of  animal 
remains  which  are  supposed  to  have  belonged  to  other 
climates.  We  likewise  decline  to  regard  as  witnesses 
of  the  Deluge  a  certain  number  of  rhinoceroses  and 
elephants  which  have  been  preserved  in  ice-beds;  the 
countless  boulders  scattered  over  the  soil,  far  from  the 
mountains  from  which  they  were  detached;  the  organic 
debris  found  in  caves  and  alluvial  deposits;  in  a  word, 
almost  all  that  which  the  illustrious  Buckland,  in  what 
\  was  probably  an  excess  of  orthodoxy,  pronounced  the 
relics  of  the  Deluge — reliquicE  Diluviancey^ 

Doubts  and  Difficulties  regarding  a  Univer- 
sal Deluge. 

One  of  the  first  seriously  to  controvert  the  theory 

of  the   geographical .  universality  of  the  Deluge  was 

Isaac  Voss,  a  Protestant  theologian,   in   1659,   in  his 

Dissertatio  de   Vera  Miuidi  Ait  ate.      He  maintained 

that  not  more  than  the  one-hundreth  part  of  the  earth 

\  was  submerged  by  the  Flood.     The  distinguished  Ben- 

I  edictine  Dom  Mabillon  having,  at  the  request  of  the 

j  Congregation  of  the  Index,   examined  the  work    of 

'  Les  Livres  Saints  et  La  Science.  See  also  Splendeurs  de  la 
Foi,  tome  iii.  chap.  xi.  For  an  interesting  review  of  the  ques- 
tion consult  Bibel  und  Natur,  by  Dr.  F.  Reusch,  cap.  xx.,  xxi., 
xxii.,  and  xxiii. 


THE   NOACHIAN  DELUGE. 


129 


Voss,  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  teaching  of 
Voss  regarding  the  non-nniversality  of  the  Dehige 
was  neither  against  faith  nor  morals,  and  could  there- 
fore be  tolerated." 

Among  English-speaking  geologists,  besides  Charles 
Lyell,  the  first  to  call  in  question  the  universality  of 
the  Deluge  were  the  famous  Scotch  geologist,  Hugh 
Miller,^  and  the  scarcely  less  eminent  American  geol- 
ogist, Prof  Edward  Hitchcock.^  Both,  following  Poole 
and  Stillingfleet,  directed  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
words  of  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  Flood  did  not 
necessarily  imply  that  the  Deluge  was  universal  as 
to  the  earth's  surface.  They  argued  that  it  was  uni- 
versal only  in  so  far  as  man  was  concerned,  and  showed 
that  this  interpretation  was  in  accordance  with  both 
Scripture  and  the  teachings  of  science. 

At  the  time  the  two  last-mentioned  authors  wrote, 
over  a  third  of  a  century  ago,  the  difficulties  that 
had  presented  themselves  to  their  predecessors  against 
the  acceptance  of  the  opinion  that  the  Deluge  was 
universal  had  so  increased  that  they  seemed  wellnigh 
inexplicable.  And  as  the  question  was  more  closely 
examined  and  the  knowledge  of  nature  became  more 
extensive  new  difficulties  arose,  whilst  the  older  ones, 
instead  of  disappearing  or  dwindling  in  size,  rapidly 
assumed  larger  proportions.  So  great,  indeed,  was 
the  impetus  given  to  the  development  of  the  natural 
sciences,  and    so  numerous   and   important  were   the 

'  "  Here  opinio,'''  says  Mabillon,  "■'nullum  continet  errorem  cap- 
italem  neque  contra  fidem  neque  co?itra  bonos  mores ;  Hague  tole- 
rari  potest  et  eritieorutn  disputationi  pennittiy 

-  Testimo7iy  of  the  Rocks,  lectures  vii.  and  viii. 

'  Religion  atid  Geology,  lecture  iv. 
9 


130  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

contributions  made  by  zoology  and  geology,  that  it 
soon  became  evident  to  every  thinking  man  that  the 
time  had  come  for  subjecting  the  older  theories  regard- 
ing the  Deluge  to  thorough  revision. 

In  the  first  place,  no  one  could  any  longer  seriously 
maintain  that  the  fossils  found  in  the  various  strata 
of  the  earth's  crust  were  deposited  there  b>'  the  Del- 
ugfe  of  Noah.  Such  a  view  was  now  regarded  as 
simply  untenable,  if  not  absurd.  It  contravened  the 
most  elementary  principles  of  geological  science — 
principles  about  the  truth  of  which  there  could  no 
/longer  be  any  doubt. 

Again;  owing  to  the  active  researches  of  naturalists 
the  world  over,  it  was  discovered  that  the  number  of 
species  of  animals  was  far  in  excess  of  what  had  pre- 
viously been  imagined.  Indeed,  when  the  number 
came  to  be  computed,  it  was  found  to  be  far  too  great 
to  find  lodgment,  not  to  speak  of  subsistence,  in  such 
an  ark  as  Moses  describes.  The  older  interpreters 
were  called  upon  to  make  provision  for  a  few  hundred 
species  at  most.  These  were  all  that  were  then  known. 
But  the  number  had  risen  to  thousands,  yea,  to 
tens  of  thousands,  and  additions  of  new  species 
were  being  made  daily  to  the  already  formidable  list. 
Whether,  then,  the  exegetist  measured  the  ark  by  the 
Hebraic  or  the  Egyptian  cubit,  it  still  remained  too 
small  to  accommodate  such  a  multitude  of  living  crea- 
tures and  contain  the  food  necessary  for  them  during 
their  enforced  confinement  therein.  According^  to 
the  most  liberal  calculations,  the  vessel  built  by  Noah 
could  not  have  been  much  larger  than — if  indeed  it 
was  so  large  as — the  Great  Eastern.  Such  a  vessel 
might  have   been    sufficiently  capacious  for  the  few 


THE   NOACHIAN   DELUGE.  131 

hundred  species  that  the  Fathers  and  Schoohnen  had 
in  mind,  but  it  was  totally  inadequate  to  supply  lodg- 
ment for  the  vast  multitude  that  was  known  at  the 
date  at  which  Miller,  Hitchcock,  and  their  compeers 
wrote. 

And  then  a  new  difficulty  presented  itself  that  the 
earl-ier  commentators  could  take  no  note  of,  and  one, 
too,  that  could  not  be  ignored.  The  advocates  of  a  uni- 
versal Deluge  had  taken  it  for  granted,  apparently,  that 
all  the  different  species  of  animal,  not  to  speak  of  vege- 
table, life  might  be  found  in  one  place  on  the  earth's 
surface.  Contrary  to  what  Linnaeus  had  taught,  Cu- 
vier  and  others  pointed  out  the  fact  that  there  are 
several  distinct  foci  or  centres  of  animal  life — that 
certain  species  and  classes  of  animals  are  found  in 
one  part  of  the  world,  while  other  species  have  their 
habitat  in  another  part.  Thus  Australia  is  peculiarly 
the  land  of  marsupials;  Borneo,  Java,  and  Sumatra, 
the  habitat  of  the  gibbon  and  the  orang-outang;  the 
giraffe,  the  zebra,  and  the  chimpanzee  are  indigenous 
only  in  Africa ;  while  in  America  alone  are  found 
armadillos,  ant-eaters,  peccaries,  bisons,  llamas,  and  a 
large  group  of  tailed  monkeys  entirely  different  from 
any  ever  seen  in  the  Old  World.  And  what  holds  good, 
for  the  fauna  and  flora  of  to-day  in  these  different  coun- 
tries obtains  for  the  fossil  remains  of  the  remote 
geologic  past. 

It  seems  unreasonable,  therefore,  to  suppose,  even 
if  the  ark  had  been  large  enough,  that  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  different  species  of  animals  of  these 
various  distant  countries  of  the  world  came  or  were 
brought  to  the  ark.  And  yet,  according  to  the  the- 
ory of  those  who  interpret  literally  the  story  of  the 


132  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

Deluge,  there  were  in  the  ark  polar  bears  from  Alaska, 
wapiti  from  Canada,  tapirs  and  jaguars,  sloths  and 
condors  from  South  America,  lions,  gorillas,  and 
ostriches  from  Africa,  elephants  and  tigers  from  India 
and  Siam,  lemurs  from  [Madagascar,  kangaroos,  ornith- 
orhynchi,  and  emus  from  Australia. 

But,  granting  that  all  these  animals,  together  with 
representatives  of  all  the  other  species  found  in  the 
various  parts  of  the  world,  were  in  the  ark;  that  there 
was  room  and  food  for  them  there  for  a  year,  the  ques- 
tion arises,  How  did  they  get  there  ?  How  were  they 
transported  from  their  distant  homes  and  conveyed 
across  the  broad  oceans  that  separated  them  from  the 
spot  where  the  ark  awaited  them  ?  And  where  did 
this  multitude  of  animals,  many  of  them  carnivorous, 
find  food  after  leaving  the  ark  ?  The  earth  then  was 
deserted  and  desolate.  Not  a  living  creature,  accord- 
ing to  the  theory  we  are  now  considering,  then  inhab- 
ited it  ;  nothing  that  could  appease  the  hunger  of 
the  thousands  of  voracious  beasts  that  could  subsist 
only  on  the  flesh  of  other  animals. 

More  than  this.  How  were  the  representatives  of 
all  the  various  faunae  of  distant  continents  and  far-off 
isles  of  the  ocean  returned  to  the  places  whence  they 
came?  One  difficulty  suggests  another,  and  the  more 
closely  the  question  is  investigated,  the  more  numerous 
and  the  more  formidable  the  difficulties  become. 

Miracles. 

The  advocates  of  a  universal  Deluge  have  a  very 
simple  way  of  disposing  of  all  objections  to  their 
theory.    "  All  things,"  they  argue,  "are  possible  with 


THE  NOACHIAN  DELUGE.  133 

God ;  tlierefore  a  universal  Deluge  was  possible. "  They 
admit  Divine  intervention  wherever  a  difficulty  presents 
itself,  and  tell  us  it  is  as  easy  for  God  to  work  a  hun- 
dred thousand  or  a  million  miracles  as  it  is  for  Him  to 
perform  one.  With  them  a  miracle  is  the  sure  and 
final  answer  to  every  objection. 

But  these  good  people  are  assuming  what  is  to  be 
proved.  They  assume  that  the  Bible  teaches  the  uni- 
versality of  the  Deluge,  and  on  the  assumption  that 
it  was  universal  they  proceed  at  once  to  call  in  the  aid 
of  Divine  interposition  to  account  for  everything  that 
cannot  be  explained  by  the  operation  of  purely  natural 
agencies.  They  forget  one  of  the  first  laws  of  sound 
hermeneutics,  which  forbids  the  arbitrary  introduction 
of  the  miraculous  in  commenting  on  disputed  or  even 
difficult  passages  of  Scripture.  They  lose  sight  of  the 
fact  that  neither  the  example  of  the  Fathers  nor  that 
of  approved  exegetists  will  permit  them  to  invoke  the 
aid  of  miracles  simply  to  remove  a  difficulty  or  explain 
a  vexed  question  of  Scripture,  especially  when  the 
words  of  the  Sacred  Text  do  not  warrant  one  in  as- 
suming the  fact  of  a  providential  intervention.  St. 
Augustine  in  hisDe  Ge7icsi  ad  Litteram^  and  St.  Greg- 
ory of  Nyssa  in  his  Hexaeniei^on^  are  very  explicit  on 
this  point.  The  substance  of  their  teaching  in  this 
matter,  briefly  stated,  is  that  miracles  are  not  to  be 
multiplied  without  reason,  and  that  they  are  not  to  be 
introduced  except  when  the  text  demands  them  or 
when  it  is  otherwise  inexplicable. 

Another  difficulty  that  precluded  the  acceptance  of 
the  geographical  universality  of  the  Deluge  was  the 
impossibility  of  explaining  the  source  of  such  an  im- 
mense volume  of  water  as  the  biblical  inundation,  if 


134  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

the  Mosaic  account  was  to  be  taken  literally,  would 
presuppose.  In  Genesis  we  read  that  "all  the  fount- 
ains of  the  great  deep  were  broken  up  and  the  flood- 
gates of  heaven  were  opened;"  "and  the  waters  pre- 
vailed beyond  measure  upon  the  earth;  and  all  the 
high  mountains  under  the  whole  heaven  were  covered. 
The  water  was  fifteen  cubits  higher  than  the  mountains 
which  it  covered."  But  what  do  these  words  signify? 
Do  they  mean  that  the  precipitation  from  the  atmo- 
sphere and  the  invasion  of  the  land  by  floods,  caused 
by  the  upheaval  of  the  ocean's  bed,  were  sufiicient  to 
cover  the  highest  mountains  over  the  whole  earth? 
When  we  remember  that  many  of  the  peaks  of  the  Andes 
and  Himalayas  are  over  twenty  thousand  feet  high, 
and  that  the  height  of  Mount  Everest  is  nearly  thirty 
thousand  feet,  and  then  call  to  mind  the  mean  depth 
of  the  ocean — according  to  Murray,'  twelve  thousand 
four  hundred  feet — we  shall  see  that  the  supply  of 
water  would  be  totally  inadequate  for  such  a  submer- 
gence as  is  supposed. - 

Some  have  imagined  that  God  specially  created  a 
sufficient  quantity  of  water  to  inundate  the  entire 
earth  and  cover  the  highest  mountains,  and  that  after 
all  flesh  outside  of  the  ark  had  been  destroyed  He 
annihilated  the  water  thus  specially  created.  This, 
however,  is  an  assumption  for  which  there  is  no  war- 
rant in  Scripture,  and  one  which  is  so  at  variance  with 
the  known  harmony  of  the  laws  of  nature,  and  so  con- 
trary to  our  ideas  of  God's  providence  and  wisdom  in 

'  Mr.  John  ^Murray,  of  the  Challenger  expedition,  is  one  of  the 
highest  living  authorities  on  oceanography-. 

*  Cf.  Le  Deluge  Biblique  et  les  Races  antediluviejuies,  par  Jean 
d'Estienne,  Revue  des  Questions  scientifiques,  Oct.,  1885. 


THE  NOACHIAN  DELUGE.  135 

the  government  of  the  world,  that  it  has  never  been 
received  with  favor  by  exegetists  of  any  weight.  No 
one  denies  that  God  could  have  worked  such  a  miracle 
had  He  so  willed,  but  we  are  dealing  with  a  question 
of  fact,  and  not  discussing  what  Omnipotence  could  or 
could  not  accomplish. 

In  the  light  of  science,  therefore,  especially  in  the 
light  of  geology,  zoology,  and  physical  geography,  the 
theory  of  a  universal  Deluge  is  untenable.  On  any 
ground  it  is  untenable  without  assuming  the  existence 
of  such  a  number  of  miracles  that  the  theory  perforce 
falls  by  its  own  weight.^ 

Explanation  of  Terms. 

But  it  will  be  asked.  What  explanation  is  to  be 
given  of  the  universal  terms  employed  in  the  biblical 
account  of  the  Deluge?  It  is  "  ^// men  "  and  ''^  every 
living  creature"  that  are  to  be  destroyed;  it  is  the 
'"''ivhole  earth"  that  is  to  be  submerged.  The  words 
"all,"  "every" — totiis^  ciinctiis^  oninis^  itniverstis — are 
absolute  and  exclude  nothing.  And  it  is  these  words, 
we  are  told,  that  must  be  satisfactorily  explained  before 
we  are  at  liberty  to  accept  any  other  theory  than  that 
which  proclaims  that  the  Deluge  was  universal. 

Nothing  is  of  more  frequent  occurrence  in  the  Old 
Testament  than  the  employment  of  universal  for  par- 
ticular terms.     The  same  peculiarity  is  observed   in 

^  Among  the  most  distinguished  of  recent  Catholic  writers 
who  teach  that  the  Deluge  affected  onh'  a  portion  of  the  earth's 
surface  are  Sorignet,  Marcel  de  Serres,  Geofroy,  Lambert, 
Michelis,  Schouppe,  Pianciani,  Zschokke,  Reusch,  Schoebel, 
Duihle  de  Saint-Projet,  Vigouroux,  Delsauz,  Hettinger.  Giit- 
tler,  Bosizio,  Brucker,  and  Lord  Arundel!  of  Wardour. 


136  BIBLE,   SCIENCE.  AND   FAITH. 

the  New  Testament,  but  not  to  such  an  extent  as  in 
the  Old.    It  is  a  characteristic  of  all  Oriental  tongues  to 
use  hyperbole,  and  at  times  in  a  way  that  we  should 
/  pronounce  extravagant.     St.  Augustine  in  a  letter  to 
I  St.   Paulinus  of  Nola  states  that  it  is  the  custom  of 
Scripture  to  speak  of  the  part  as  of  the  whole.  ^     He 
i  likewise   observes   that   it   is   frequently  necessary  to 
explain  the  word  "all" — omnis — in  a  restricted  sense. 
He  tells  his  correspondent  that  there  are  many  pas- 
sages in  the  Sacred  Text  which  at  first  sight  present 
numerous  difficulties,  which,  however,   forthwith  dis- 
'    appear   on   apphing   to  the   terms  used  a  particular 
'   instead  of  a  general  or  absolute  signification. 

A  few  examples  will  illustrate  the  principle  of  the 
great  Doctor,  and  show  how  universal  is  its  application 
in  explaining  even  the  simplest  narratives. 

In  speaking  of  the  famine  which  prevailed  at  the 
time  of  Jacob,  Moses  declares  that  "the  famine  pre- 
vailed in  the  whole  world,"  that  "  the  famine  increased 
daily  in  all  the  land,"  and  that  "  all  the  provinces  came 
into  Egypt  to  buy  food  and  to  seek  some  relief  of  their 
want."  2 
f       None  of  these  passages,   however,  are  to  be  taken 
)  literally,  notwithstanding  the  use  of  the  absolute  terms 
j    "all"  and  "whole" — onuiis  and  tiniversiis.    Moses  re- 
\  fers  only  to  the  countries  and  the  peoples  known  to  the 
/  Hebrews. 

In  a  similar  manner  is  to  be  explained  the  analogous 
passage  in  the  book  of  Kings,  where  we  read,  "And 

^  Scripturae  mos  est  ita  loqui  de  parte  tamquam  de  toto,  Epist. 
ad  Paulin.,  cxlix.  See  also  Pianciani's  Cosmogojiia  Naturale 
Comparata  col  Genesi,  pp.  243-245. 

*  Genesis  xii.  54,  56,  57. 


THE   NOACHIAN   DELUGE.  1 37 

all  the  earth  desired  to  see  Solomon's  face  and  to  hear 
his  wisdom,  which  God  had  given  in  his  heart."  '  Onr 
Lord  Himself  uses  similar  language  when  He  declares 
that  the  queen  of  Saba  "came  from  the  ends  of  the 
earth  to  hear  the  wisdom  of  Solomon."  St.  Luke  in 
like  manner  speaks  in  the  same  general  terms  when 
he  tells  us  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that  at  the  time 
of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  apostles  there 
were  assembled  in  Jerusalem  "  devout  men  out  of  every 
nation  under  heaven." 

In  the  case  of  the  famine  in  the  time  of  Jacob  the 
people  referred  to  did  not  live  more  than  a  few  hun- 
dred miles,  at  the  most,  from  the  home  of  the  patriarch. 
The  queen  of  Saba  dwelt,  most  likely,  in  Southern  Ara- 
bia, distant,  possibly,  some  ten  or  twelve  hundred  miles. 
The  representatives  of  every  nation  under  heaven  in 
Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost  came  from  the  coun- 
tries that  were  then  known  to  the  Jewish  people,  and, 
to  judge  from  those  named,  none  who  were  present  at 
the  time  came  from  points  distant  more  than  a  few 
thousand  miles  at  the  farthest.  No  exegetist  has  ever 
thought  of  taking  the  words  literally,  or  of  imagining 
that  there  were  then  present  in  the  Holy  City,  Chinese 
and  Japanese,  Indians  from  Peru  and  Mexico,  and 
strangers  from  the  Isles  of  the  South  Pacific.  And 
yet  if  the  words  were  to  be  taken  literally  one  would 
be  perfectly  justified  in  making  such  a  supposition. 

A  still  more  striking  illustration  of  hyperbole,  so 
characteristic  of  Hebrew  thought  and  language  is 
found  in  Sophonias:  "Gathering,  I  will  gather  to- 
gether all  things  from  off  the  face  of  the  land,  saith 
the  Lord.     I  will  gather  man  and  beast,  I  will  gather 

'  III  Kings,  24. 


138  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

the  birds  of  the  air  and  the  fishes  of  the  sea:  and  the 
ungodly  shall  meet  with  ruin:  and  I  will  destroy  men 
from  off  the  face  of  the  land,  saith  the  Lord."  ' 

Here,  to  take  the  words  literally,  we  have  a  menace 
of  universal  destruction.  Not  only  all  men  and  all  ani- 
mals are  to  be  destroyed,  but  all  birds  of  the  air  and 
all  fishes  of  the  sea.  The  words  threatening  the  de- 
struction of  animate  nature  by  the  Deluge  do  not 
imply  more,  are  not  more  precise  and  far-reaching. 
But  what  are  the  object  and  extent  of  divine  wrath 
as  expressed  in  these  sweeping  words  of  the  prophet  ? 
Some  interpreters  tell  us  that  reference  is  made  to  the 
land  and  people  of  Juda;  others  say  that  the  menace 
is  directed  against  Babylon,  while  others  still  maintain 
that  the  prophecy  refers  to  the  Phoenicians  and  other 
peoples  on  the  borders  of  Palestine.  But,  whatever 
be  the  exact  meaning  of  the  text,  it  is  generally  agreed 
among  commentators  that  the  universal  terms  em- 
ployed have  a  meaning  that  is,  if  anything,  more 
restricted  than  that  of  similar  words  in  any  of  the 
passages  yet  quoted. 

And  so  is  it  in  many  other  instances  that  might  be 
adduced.  The  whole  earth — om?ns  terra — sometimes 
applies  only  to  the  Promised  Land;  sometimes  it  em- 
braces only  Egypt.  At  other  times  the  same  words 
are  made  to  refer  to  the  kingdom  of  David  or  of  Solo- 
mon, and  at  others,  again,  to  a  stretch  of  country 
bounded  by  the  visible  horizon.^ 

It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  words  of  Scrip- 
ture are  self-explanatory,  or  that  we  can  arrive  at  the 

^  Sophonias,  I,  2  and  3. 

^  Le  Deluge  Bibliqiie  devaiit  la  Foi,  V Ecriture  et  la  Science, 
par  Al.  Motais,  p.  52. 


THE  NOACHIAN  DELUGE.  139 

signification  of  the  words  by  considering  them  in 
themselves  and  apart  from  what  precedes  or  follows 
them.  In  some  cases  we  can  determine  the  precise 
meaning  of  the  terms  used  from  the  context.  In 
others  we  nmst  have  recourse  to  parallel  texts,  and 
study  the  meaning  of  the  passage  in  question  in  the 
light  of  the  genius  of  the  language  and  of  the  temper- 
ament of  the  people  who  spoke  it.  Many  readers  of 
the  Scriptures  fall  into  egregious  errors  by  imagin- 
ing that  they  are  obliged  to  apply  the  same  rules  of 
interpretation  and  criticism  to  the  florid,  picturesque, 
and  hyperbolical  languages  of  the  Orient  as  they 
would  in  studying  the  meaning  of  an  author  who  had 
written  in  English,  French,  or  German.  Sound,  logi- 
cal exegesis,  however,  as  Reithmayer  has  so  clearly 
expressed  it,  requires  us  to  interpret  Scripture  accord- 
ing to  the  mind  of  the  writer  and  according  to  the 
mind  of  those  for  whom  the  author  speaks. 

Teaching  of  Fathers  and  Doctors. 

But,  conceding  the  gravity  of  the  objections  offered 
by  science  against  the  acceptance  of  the  theory  of  a 
universal  Deluge,  and  granting  that  tlie  words  of  the 
Bible  may,  in  certain  cases,  be  interpreted  in  a  re- 
stricted sense,  are  we  justified  in  concluding  from 
these  facts  that  such  a  restricted  use  of  language  is 
applicable  to  the  account  that  Moses  gives  of  the  Flood 
of  Noah  ?  Comparing  the  language  employed  in  the 
description  of  the  Deluge  with  that  used  in  other  pas- 
sages of  the  inspired  writings,  it  may  be  admitted 
that,  m  se,  a  restricted  meaning  may  be  attributed  to 
the  universal  terms  that  occur  in  the  narrative,  but  it 


140  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

will  be  asked,  Will  the  traditional  interpretation  that 
has  been  assigned  to  the  great  catastrophe  permit  ns 
any  liberty  of  opinion  on  the  snbject  under  discussion? 

What  have  the  Fathers  and  Doctors  of  the  Churcli 
thought  and  taught  ?  What  have  the  Schoolmen  and 
commentators  of  a  subsequent  age  believed  and  pro- 
fessed? And  are  we  not  obliged  to  accept  the  tra- 
ditional teaching — the  teaching  of  the  early  Fathers 
and  that  of  the  mediaeval  schools — as  the  teaching  of 
the  Church  ?  And  if  it  be  found  that  these  venerated 
and  venerable  authorities  have,  with  almost  unbroken 
unanimity,  held  that  the  Deluge  was  universal,  can  we 
as  faithful  children  of  the  Church — citra  jacturam  pie- 
tatis^  as  Melchior  Cano  expresses  it — reject  their  teach- 
ing and  regard  the  contrary  vi.ew  as  tenable? 

We  may  for  the  nonce  admit  that  the  Fathers  and 
Doctors,  theologians  and  commentators,  for  the  first 
sixteen  centuries  of  the  Church's  history  almost  unan- 
imously believed  and  taught  that  the  Flood  was  uni- 
versal. But,  granting  this  to  be  true,  are  we  obliged 
to  regard  their  beliefs  and  teachings  as  anything  more 
than  the  expressions  of  personal  opinions  concerning 
matters  that  any  one  is  free  to  discuss?  Or  are  we  to 
consider  their  consensus  of  opinion  regarding  the 
Flood  as  a  part  of  that  body  of  doctrine  which  cannot 
be  impugned  without  scandal  and  danger  to  faith  ? 

Let  us  examine.  It  may  at  once  be  premised  that 
very  few  of  the  texts  of  the  Holy  Scripture  have  been 
explicitly  defined  by  the  Church.  And  it  may  at  the 
same  time  be  further  observed  that  an  equally  small 
number  of  passages  are  regarded  as  authoritatively  and 
infallibly  interpreted  by  the  unanimous  exegesis  of 
the  Fathers.     Hence  of  the  thousands  of  paragraphs 


THE   NOACHIAN    DELUGE.  14I 

of  which  the  Holy  Scripture  is  composed,  the  num- 
-    ber  on  which  the  Church  and  her  Doctors  have  pro- 
I     nounced  authentic  and  solemn  judgment  is  very  small 
J    indeed. 

,  The  question  now  arises:  Is  the  narrative  of  the 
1  Deluge  to  be  classed  among  those  parts  of  Scripture  to 
j    which  have  been  given  an  authoritative  interpretation? 

We  can  say,  unhesitatingly,  that  in  so  far  as  the 
i    Church   is  concerned,  as  represented  by  her  supreme 

ruler,  nothing  whatever  has  been  decided.  There  is 
j   no  papal  judgment   or  interpretation  bearing  on  the 

subject.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  we  are  at  full  lib- 
I  erty  to  elect  any  theory  regarding  the  Deluge  that  may 
<    commend  itself  to  our  judgment. 

But  is  not  the  consensus  of  opinion  of  the  Fathers 

and  Doctors  of  the  Church  of  that  kind  which  we  are 

compelled  to  accept  as  a  part  of  the  dogmatic  teaching 

of  the  Church  ?     Let  us  see  what  are  our  privileges 

and  what  are  our  obligations  in  the  face  of  patristic 

and  scholastic  teaching  and  opinion. 
f       A  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  renewed  by  the 
\   Council  of  the  Vatican,  declares  that  in  "matters  of 
j  faith   and   morals   pertaining  to  the  building  up  of 

Christian  doctrine  ...  it  is  forbidden  to  interpret 
i  Scripture  contrary  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
)  Fathers."  ^ 

Now,  according  to  Pallavicini,   the  great  historian 

of  the  Council  of  Trent,  "  the  Council  had  no  inten- 
:  tion  to  prescribe  a  new  rule  or  to  restrain  by  new  laws 
I  the  manner  of  interpreting  the  Word  of  God,  but  simply 
I    declared  as  illicit  and  heretical  what  was  so  by  its 

'  Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  iv. ;  Cone.  Vatic.  Constit.  de  Fide  Catho- 
liea,  2. 


142  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

nature,  and  what  had  always  been  held  and  proclaimed 
as  such  by  Fathers,  Pontiffs,  and  Councils." 

The  decree  had  no  reference  to  certain  questions  of 
minor  importance — qiicBstiunculcE^  as  St.  Vincent  of 
Lerins  calls  them — connected  with  biblical  interpreta- 
tion. It  referred  rather  to  fundamental  questions  of 
faith  and  morals — or,  as  the  same  St.  Vincent  puts  it, 
to  his  dumtaxat  prcBcipue  qucBstio7iibiis  quibus  totius 
Catholici  dogmaiis  fundameiita  nituntur. 

"When,"  says  Cardinal  Franzelin,  "we  inquire 
what  is  the  measure  of  the  authority  which  the  unani- 
mous consent  of  the  Fathers  possesses  in  a  question  of 
theology,  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  the  different 
ways  in  which  a  given  doctrine  may  be  proposed  by 
them,  and  to  consider  whether  their  opinion  regarding 
such  a  doctrine  is  or  is  not  tantamount  to  a  declaration 
that  it  belongs  to  the  common  faith  of  the  Church,  or 
whether,  on  the  contrary,  their  consensus  of  opinion 
may  not  rather  refer  to  a  doctrine  or  an  explanation  of 
a  doctrine,  connected  indeed  with  religion  and  truth, 
but  not  so  clearly  proposed  as  to  entitle  it  to  be 
regarded  as  a  dogma  of  faith."  ' 

When  there  is  question  of  Councils  or  Popes  giving 
decisions,  it  is  necessary,  the  same  theologian  declares, 
that  they  speak  "in  the  plenitude  of  their  authority, 
and  that  they  deliver  authentically  a  dogma  proposed 
for  universal  acceptance." 

If,  then,  explicit  and  authentic  definition  is  required 
when  Popes  and  Councils  speak,  for  a  much  stronger 
reason  equal  certainty  of  definition  is  demanded  when 
there  is  question  of  the  authority  of  the  Fathers.  It 
is  important  in  this  connection  to  remember  the  state- 

*  Franzelin,  De  Divina  Traditionc  et  Scriptura,  sect.  ii.  cap.  i. 


THE   NOACHIAN   DELUGE. 


H3 


ment  of  Bossuet,  that  "  the  Fathers  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  do  not  urge  the  literal  sense 
except  when  confirming  dogmas  and  refuting  heretics." 

Hence,  Pallavicini  teaches,  it  is  necessary  that  there 
be  question  not  only  of  doctrinal  matters,  but  also  of 
dogmas  to  be  believed,  and  that  the  sense  of  the 
Sacred  Text  be  declared  certain  by  the  unanimous 
teaching  of  the  Fathers.  It  is  necessary  that  the  sig- 
nification of  the  text  be  approved  as  a  dogma  of  faith 
— tanquam  dogma  Jidei  a  ciinctis  Ecclesice  Doctoribus 
comprobari — and  that  the  Fathers  condemn,  or  show 
that  they  are  disposed  to  condemn,  as  a  heretic  any 
one  who  rejects  the  truth  which  they  enunciate  or  the 
article  of  faith  which  they  proclaim.  If,  however,  the 
Fathers  regard  a  doctrine  simply  as  religious  and  true, 
if  they  declare  themselves  only  as  if  expressing  an 
opinion — ^^ opinantmm  modo'''' — they  teach  us  by  their 
example  that  we  also  may  have  the  same  liberty  of 
opinion.  Wherefore,  in  order  that  the  consensus  pa- 
truni  may  bear  on  the  face  of  it  the  formula  of  Catholic 
truth,  it  must  carry  with  it  the  evidences  of  undoubted 
and  explicit  dogmatic  decisions.^ 

St.  Thomas  Aquinas  makes  a  beautiful  distinction 
between  things  which  are  necessarily  of  faith  and 
things  which  pertain  to  faith  only  accidentally,  which 
will  serve  to  elucidate  the  question  under  discussion. 
The  Trinity  and  Unity  of  God,  for  instance,  belong 
necessarily — per  se — to  the  substance  of  faith.  Many 
things  of  an  historical  nature — historialia — appertain 
to  faith  only  accidentally — per  accidens — about  which 
even  the  saints  have  entertained  different  views,  and 

^  See  Motais,  Le  DHuge  Biblique,  pp.  132  et  seq.,  whose  argu- 
ment I  have  here  followed. 


144  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

regarding  wliicli  tliey  have  given  different  interpreta- 
tions. Thus,  that  the  world  was  created  belongs  to 
the  substance  of  faith,  and  such  is  the  unanimous 
teaching  of  the  Fathers.  But  the  manner  and  order 
of  creation  pertain  to  faith  only  accidentally.  Hence 
many  different  explanations  have  been  given  regarding 
these  questions  without  in  the  least  affecting  the  truth 
of  Scripture.^ 

The  distinction  the  Angelic  Doctor  lays  down  re- 
garding the  creation  of  the  world  applies,  it  seems, 
with  equal  force  to  the  Noachian  Deluge.  The  fact  of 
the  Deluge  no  one  can  deny.  Neither  may  we  call  in 
question  the  prophecy  announcing  the  Flood  n6r  the 
purpose  which  it  subserved.  These  are  of  faith,  and 
explicitly  declared  so  even  by  our  Lord  and  His 
Apostles.  The  prophecy,  we  must  admit,  was  miracu- 
lous, and  therefore  supernatural.  The  Deluge,  although 
providential  was,  we  may  believe,  but  natural.  The 
Almighty  by  His  foreknowledge  simply  availed  Him- 
self of  natural  agents  in  carrying  out  the  execution  of 
His  decrees.  We  are  at  liberty,  therefore,  to  maintain 
that  the  occurrence  of  the  Deluge  was  natural,  as  we 
may  believe  that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  was 
natural.  The  latter  event  was  foretold  with  even 
greater  detail  than  the  former,  but  in  both  instances  it 
was  natural  causes — in  one  the  forces  of  nature,  in 
the  other  human  agency — that  were  executors  of  the 
divine  Will. 

Liberty  of  Interpretation. 

And  if  we  are  free  to  explain   the   Deluge  by  the 
'  In  Lib.  ii.  Sent.,  Distinct  xii.  Art.  2. 


THE   NOACHIAN   DELUGE.  145 

action  of  causes  purely  physical,  we  may  likewise, 
a  fortiori^  avail  ourselves  of  the  same  liberty  of  inter- 
pretation regarding  the  extent  to  which  the  catastrophe 
prevailed.  Father  de  Smet,  the  celebrated  president 
of  the  Bollandists,  expresses  this  idea  forcibly  when  he 
declares  that  "  the  Catholic  savant^  when  in  presence 
of  a  prodigy  whose  miraculous  character  is  not  clearly 
attested  by  a  divine  witness,  has  full  liberty  to  examine 
it  with  all  the  severity  which  characterizes  the  dis- 
cussion of  miracles  by  the  members  of  the  Sacred 
Congregation  of  Rites  in  cases  of  beatification  and 
canonization."  Even  granting  that  the  Scriptures 
declared  not  only  the  fact  of  the  Deluge,  but  also 
informed  us  in  detail  as  to  its  extent  and  the  causes 
which  operated  in  its  production,  such  a  recital  would 
be  an  object  of  Catholic  faith  only  accidentally,  inas- 
much as  it  constitutes  a  part  of  the  Sacred  Text,  but 
it  would  not  of  itself,  as  St.  Thomas  and  Franzelin 
teach,  enter  into  the  things  of  faith  and  morals  that 
pertain  to  the  building  up  of  Christian  doctrine  as 
based  on  the  infallible  interpretation  of  the  Fathers. 
What  St.  Thomas  says  of  matters  which  are  purely 
historical — historialia — Patrizzi  declares  of  matters  of 
science  and  philosophy.  "You  will  not  find,"  this 
eminent  theologian  declares,  "questions  which  are 
purely  philosophical  treated  by  the  Fathers  as  pertain- 
ing to  religion  and  Christian  piety."  '     St.  Augustine 

'  Institiit.  de  Interpreiatione  Bibliorutn,  cap.  v.  Fessler,  in 
commenting  on  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  respect- 
ing the  authority  and  scope  of  patristic  teaching,  declares  : 
"Non  itaque  S.  Synodus  statuit  piaculum  esse  a  patribus  dis- 
cedere  in  qusestioniljus  historicis,  philosophicis,  niathematecis, 
physicis,  astrononiicis,  geographicis  alii.sque  hujus  modi  rebus, 
10 


/ 


146  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

expresses  the  same  sentiment  with  equal  force  and 
clearness.  "In  the  obscurities  of  natural  things," 
the  great  Doctor  observes,  "in  which  we  recognize 
the  omnipotence  of  God,  we  must  proceed,  not  by 
affirming,  but  by  inquiring,  especially  when  there  is 
a  question  of  treating  books  commended  to  us  by 
divine  authority,"  ^  In  such  matters,  therefore — in 
questions,  namely,  that  are  purely  historical,  philo- 
sophical, or  scientific,  as  prescinded  from  any  clear 
and  certain  connection  with  matters  of  faith  and 
morals — we  have  all  the  liberty  of  examination  and 
discussion  that  even  the  most  exacting  investigator 
could  reasonably  desire.  For  this  reason  it  is  that 
Melchior  Cano,  when  speaking  of  the  nature  and 
force  of  traditional  interpretation,  does  not  hesitate  to 
declare,  anent  such  subjects  as  the  one  under  examina- 
tion, that  "if  all  the  Fathers  had  erred  in  their  opin- 
ions, they  would  have  been  wrong  in  matters  of  slight 
moment." 

I  have  assumed,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the 
Fathers  and  Doctors  of  the  Church  were  at  one  as  to 
tlieir  views  of  the  universality  of  the  Deluge.  This 
assumption,  although  in  the  main  true,  requires  qualifica- 
tion. Their  teaching,  although  apparently  unanimous, 
admits  of  some  exceptions  which  in  the  discussion  of 
questions  like  the  present  have  especial  significance. 

Thus,  notwithstanding  the  absolute  expression,  "all 
the  earth" — omiiis  terra — some  of  the  Fathers  and 
older  writers  exclude  Olympus  and  Atlas  from  the 
effects  of  the  inundation,  contending  that  these  moun- 

qiiibvis  Sacrae  Litterse  materiam  vastam  suppeditant." — histi- 
tutiones  Patrologice,  torn.  i.  p.  55. 
'  De  Gene  si  ad  Utteram,  cap.  i. 


THE  NOACHIAN  DELUGE.  147 

tains  were  too  high  for  the  waters  of  the  Deluge  to 
reach  their  summits.  Others  make  the  same  excep- 
tion for  the  Garden  of  Eden.  Others,  again,  go  much 
farther,  and  say  that  the  waters  of  the  Dehige  did  not 
reach  the  summits  of  any  of  the  mountains,  but  re- 
mained only  on  the  plains  below. 

More  than  this.  They  made  exception,  without 
any  apparent  hesitation,  not  only  for  different  parts 
of  the  earth's  surface,  but  also  for  different  kinds  of 
animal  life.  They  found  justification  for  such  excep- 
tions in  various  reasons — some  of  them  very  fanciful 
indeed — of  science  and  history  and  exegesis.^  But  the 
important  fact  disclosed  by  these  exceptions  made  by 
the  Fathers  and  contemporary  authors,  who  were  faith- 
ful children  of  the  Church,  is  that  they  throw  light 
on  the  bearing  of  Scripture  exegesis  at  the  time  in 
question  on  the  meaning  to  be  attached  to  the  words 
"all  the  earth"  and  "all  flesh."  If  one  exception 
could  be  made — the  Fathers  made  many — what  is  to 
prevent  us  from  freely  interpreting  the  narrative  of 
the  Deluee  in  the  restricted  sense  which  we  have  been 
advocating?  Even  aside  from  the  principles  of  inter- 
pretation which  we  have  been  considering,  we  should 
be  justified  by  the  example  of  the  Fathers  themselves 
in  upholding  the  theory  of  the  non-universality  of  the 
Flood. 

What  has  been  said  of  the  Fathers  may  with  equal 
truth  be  affirmed  of  the  Schoolmen  and  the  exegetists 
who  succeeded  tJiem.  The  Fathers  in  their  capacity 
of  witnesses  and  doctors  of  Tradition  are,  as  Franzelin 
teaches,  one  of  the  essential  parts  of  the  magisterium 
and  ministry  divine-human  instituted  by  God  for  the 
•  See  Motais,  Le  Deluge  Biblique. 


148  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

propagation  of  Christian  doctrine  in  the  world.  But 
if  the  opinions  of  these  preordained  witnesses  to  the 
trutli  of  Tradition  are  not  binding  on  our  reason  ex- 
cept when  they  possess  all  the  characters  demanded 
by  theology  and  the  Church,  for  a  stronger  reason 
the  unanimous  consent  of  the  School  cannot  be  said 
to  have  such  authority  over  our  reason  and  conscience. 
This  is  what  Pius  IX.  means  when  he  declares  that  the 
constant  and  unanimous  consent  of  theologians  must 
refer  not  only  to  matters  offaith^  but  that  the  doctrine 
taught  must  be  held  as  true  and  as  of  Catholic  faith} 

And  yet  more.  The  common  opinion  of  the  Scho- 
lastics, even  when  deduced  from  sources  of  revelation, 
is  not  of  faith,  as  Franzelin  teaches,  except  when  the 
truths  it  teaches  are  declared  to  be  such.  Suarez  as- 
signs several  reasons  why  such  an  unanimous  opinion 
may  not  be  of  faith:  "First,  the  text  of  Scripture  in 
question  may  be  so  worded  as  to  admit  of  several  inter- 
pretations. Second,  because  the  Church  has  given  no 
decision  in  the  matter.  Third,  because  Tradition  is 
not  decisive  on  the  question."^ 

These  declarations  refer  especially  to  opinions  which 
are  subject  to  change — to  opinions  which  even  the 
Schoolmen  themselves  did  not  hesitate  to  abandon 
when  sufficient  reasons  for  so  doings  were  forthcom- 
ing.  Opinions  regarding  certain  matters  of  science, 
history,  and  philosophy  would  come  under  this  head. 
They  would  naturally  change  with  the  advance  of 
knowledge  and  the  progress  of  research.  The  various 
opinions  entertained  regarding  the  six  days  of  creation 
is  a  case  in  point.     And  scarcely  less  noteworthy  in  this 

.     '  Encyclical  of  Dec.  21,  1863. 

^  Quoted  by  ISIotais  in  Le  Deluge  Biblique,  p.  174. 


THE   NOACHIAN   DELUGE.  1 49 

respect  is  the  question  of  tlie  universality  of  the  Del- 
uge. It  is  a  question  rather  of  science  and  archaeology 
than  of  pure  theology.  Hence  the  changes  of  opinion 
that  have  been  occasioned  by  modern  scientific  investi- 
gations and  the  new  views  that  are  now  entertained 
by  apologists  and  exegetists. 

The  Fathers,  as  we  have  seen,  interpret  the  text 
regarding  the  total  destruction  of  mankind  accord- 
ing to  its  most  obvious  meaning.  They  had  no  rea- 
son to  hold  a  different  opinion  from  that  which  they 
professed.  The  state  of  knowledge  in  their  time  did 
not  admit  of  any  other  view,  and  even  if  one  could 
have  been  formulated  there  would  have  been  no  means 
of  verifying  it. 

Like  the  Fathers,  the  Schoolmen  gave  an  opinion  on 
an  equivocal  passage  of  Scripture  without  any  profound 
investigation,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  necessary 
data  for  such  investigation  were  almost  entirely  want- 
ing. As  a  matter  of  habit,  as  it  were,  without  reason- 
ing and  without  reflection,  they  accepted  as  true  the 
opinions  of  the  Fathers,  but  made  no  attempt  to  estab- 
lish the  truth  of  these  opinions. 

But  while  they  took  it  for  granted  that  the  opinions 
taught  were  true,  they  did  not  propose  them  as  neces- 
sary articles  of  belief.  The  very  manner  in  which 
they  express  themselves  evinces  the  contrary.  Indeed, 
a  brief  examination  of  the  way  in  which  the  School- 
men treated  the  question  of  the  universality  of  the 
Deluge  will  convince  one  that  the  common  opinion 
that  was  held  regarding  the  catastrophe  was  one  of 
those  which,  as  De  lyUgo  says,  might  be  universally 
defended  in  one  age,  and  in  con.sequence  of  the  prog- 
ress of  research  be  as  universally  rejected  in  the  next. 


I50  Bible,  science,  and  faith. 

And  no  less  an  authority  than  Cardinal  Franzelin  tells 
us  that  an  opinion  that  has  obtained  general  accept- 
ance among  theologians  may  sometimes,  by  reason  of 
tlie  discovery  of  new  data  or  because  of  more  profound 
investigations,  lose  much  of  its  pristine  authority  or 
even  be  abandoned  entirely. 

It  may  then  be  accepted  as  a  fact,  which  no  one  can 
gainsay,  that  not  a  single  Scholastic,  nor  indeed  any 
Catholic  theologian  of  repute,  has  ever  taught,  from 
any  point  of  view  whatever,  that  the  universality  of  the 
Deluge  is  of  faith.  The  consent  of  Doctors  may  have 
been  universal,  but  it  was  regarding  a  matter  that 
was  always  open  for  examination  and  discussion.  The 
consent,  therefore,  was  at  best  a  matter  of  opinion, 
and  not  one  of  positive  judgment  or  dogmatic  defi- . 
nition.  It  was  an  opinion  that  obtained  for  centuries, 
not  because  it  was  not  open  to  controversy,  but  because 
the  materials  supplied  by  modern  criticism,  and  indis- 
pensable for  successfully  grappling  with  the  question, 
were  not  then  available.  It  was  an  opinion  that  had 
not  been  tried  in  the  crucible  of  modern  exegesis,  and 
one,  consequently,  that  never  had  any  of  the  notes  of 
truth  and  certitude  possessed  by  a  dogma  of  faith.  The 
unanimity  in  question  was,  at  best,  something  purely 
negative,  and  cannot  be  construed  as  authoritatively 
opposing  a  theory  that,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
was,  at  the  time  of  which  we  speak,  incapable  of  being 
formulated. 

True  it  is,  the  opinion  is  one  that  prevailed  for  over 
a  thousand  years — one  that  was  discussed  in  many 
bulky  volumes  from  the  times  of  St.  Augustine  and 
Tostatus  to  those  of  IMersenne  and  Pereira.  But  time 
alone  in  the  discussion  of  such  a  question  is  not  an 


THE   NOACHIAN    DELUGE.  151 

important  factor.  If  it  were  a  question  of  principles 
or  one  of  pure  theology,  where  all  the  elements  and 
documents  necessary  for  the  elucidation  of  the  case 
were  at  hand,  the  application  of  the  ordinary  rules  of 
logic  would  be  all  that  was  necessary  to  draw  certain 
and  infallible  conclusions.  In  such  a  case  the  solution 
of  the  question  would  involve  nothing  more  than  sim- 
ple reflection  and  ratiocination,  and  a  genius  like  that 
of  a  St.  Augustine  or  of  a  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  would 
not  demand  time  as  an  indispensable  prerequisite  for 
arriving  at  a  conclusion. 

But  with  questions  of  physical  and  natural  science, 
of  history  and  philosophy,  of  archaeology  and  linguis- 
tics, it  is  quite  otherwise.  Hence  St.  Augustine,  Ori- 
gen,  and  other  Doctors  felt  constrained  to  leave  to  time 
the  clearing  up  of  many  difficulties  which  in  the  state 
of  limited  information  in  their  day  were  insoluble.  If 
the  illustrious  bishop  of  Hippo  could,  toward  the  end 
of  his  life,  find  in  his  writings  materials  for  a  volume 
of  retractions,  how  much  more,  if  he  were  now  living, 
would  he  not  discover,  in  those  obscure  natural  ques- 
tions that  in  his  time  were  so  puzzling,  to  amend  or 
reject  !  And  if  now,  in  the  light  of  modern  research 
and  with  the  aid  of  sciences  that  were  unknown  to  the 
Fathers  and  the  Schoolmen,  we  still  encounter  insu- 
perable difficulties,  even  in  connection  with  the  ques- 
tion now  under  examination,  how  lenient  should  we 
not  be  in  passing  judgment  on  opinions  that  were  then 
formed  and  generally  received — opinions  which  their 
authors  would  be  the  first  to  modify  or  abandon  if  they 
were  now  living  or  if  they  had  had  the  data  and  inform- 
ation that  modern  natural  and  physical  science  has 
placed  at  our  disposal  ! 


CHAPTER  11. 

THE   ANTHROPOLOGICAL    UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE 
DELUGE. 

Novelty  of  the  Question. 

WE  are  now  prepared  to  go  a  step  farther.  The 
Deluge  was  not,  as  we  may  believe,  universal 
as  to  the  earth's  surface  nor  as  to  the  destruction  of  all 
forms  of  animal  life.  Was  it,  excluding  those  who 
were  in  the  ark,  universal  as  to  man  ?  Until  the  last 
few  years  scarcely  any  one  would  have  thought  of  giv- 
ing to  this  question  other  than  an  affirmative  answer. 
Whatever  views  may  have  been  entertained  as  to  the 
geographical  universality  of  the  Deluge,  it  was  almost, 
if  not  quite,  unanimously  believed  that  no  exception 
could  be  made  to  the  total  destruction  of  our  race 
except  that  stated  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  Genesis, 
where  only  Noah  and  his  family  are  explicitly  excluded 
from  the  all-destroying  cataclysm.  To  question  and, 
much  more,  to  deny,  the  universality  of  the  Deluge 
was,  and  is  still,  with  the  majority  of  the  people,  con- 
sidered tantamount  to  impugning  the  authority  of  the 
Bible  or  rejecting  an  article  of  faith.  Nevertheless,  if 
the  question  be  examined  without  any  preconceived 
notions,  in  the  light  of  modern  research  and  true  exe- 
gesis, and  with  the  seriousness  and  thoroughness  to 
which  it  is  entitled,  it  will,  I  think,  be  found  that  one 
may  be  justified  in  holding  different  views  from  those 
which  have  been  so  long  current.     This  may,  doubt- 

152 


THE   NOACHIAN   DELUGE.  1 53 

less,  surprise  some  of  my  readers,  and  yet  I  make  the 
statement  deliberately  and  with  a  full  knowledge  of 
all  the  objections  urged  against  such  an  interpretation. 
I  know  that  I  am  mooting  a  question  that  was  not 
seriously  discussed  until  a  few  years  ago,  and  calling 
attention  to  a  theory  that  has  as  yet  but  few  defenders. 
But  is  it  not  a  privilege  and  a  right  of  ours  to  examine 
the  latest  phases  of  modern  thought,  to  consider  the 
theories  that  are  now  agitating  the  thinking  world,  as 
well  as  inform  ourselves  regarding  facts  and  principles 
about  which  there  can  be  no  controversy?  And  if  so, 
is  it  not  our  right,  as  well  as  our  privilege,  to  scruti- 
nize what  we  may  believe  as  well  as  what  we  must 
believe — to  discuss  hypotheses  and  theories  as  well  as 
doctrines  and  dogmas  ?  And  are  we  not  justified, 
therefore,  in  pushing  our  investigations  to  the  farthest 
limits  permitted  by  reason  and  sound  criticism  ?  I 
think  there  can  be  but  one  answer  to  these  queries — 
that  we  should  fail  to  keep  abreast  with  the  advance 
of  modern  discovery  and  modern  thought  if  we  should 
not  avail  ourselves  of  all  the  sources  of  information 
that  are  placed  at  our  disposal,  and  examine,  as  far  as 
may  be,  even  the  tentative  efforts  that  have  in  view  the 
solution  of  problems  in  which  all  students  have  been 
more  or  less  interested  from  time  immemorial. 

Universality  of  the  Deluge  an  Open  Question. 

It  will  clear  the  way  somewhat  to  premise  that 
neither  the  Church  nor  Tradition  nor  the  School 
has  ever  defined  or  taught  that  the  universal  destruc- 
tion of  mankind  by  the  Flood,  excepting,  of  course, 
those  in  the  ark,  is  of  faith.     In  this  respect  there  is 


154  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

the  same  liberty  of  belief  as  there  is  regarding  the 
geographical  universality  of  the  Deluge.  And  the 
principles  laid  down  and  the  quotations  from  the 
Fathers  and  theologians  which  have  been  given  as  bear- 
ing on  the  latter  case  apply  with  equal  force  and  truth 
to  the  former.  There  has  been,  it  may  be  admitted,  a 
common  consent,  which  there  was  not  until  recently 
an)'  reason  for  disputing,  that  all  men  except  Noah 
and  his  family  were  destroyed;  but  it  may,  I  think, 
be  safely  asserted  that  this  common  consent  never 
amounted  to  anything  more  than  an  opinion,  to  stand 
or  fall  according  to  the  evidence  with  which  it  might 
be  supported.  We  have  seen  that  the  absolute  expres- 
sions "all  the  earth,"  omnis  terra^  and  ''all  flesh," 
omnis  caro^  may  be  used  in  a  restricted  sense — that 
science  demands  it,  that  exegesis  allows  it.  The  ques- 
tion now  presents  itself  naturally  and  logically:  Can- 
not the  universal  terms  "all  men,"  uiiiversi homines^ 
be  likewise  interpreted  in  a  similar  sense?  There  is 
certainly  nothing  in  the  narrative  of  the  Deluge  nor 
in  any  collateral  text  bearing  upon  the  subject  that 
precludes  such  an  interpretation.  Besides,  the  laws  of 
logic  and  hermeneutics  oblige  us,  if  we  are  to  be  con- 
sistent, to  deal  with  all  the  universal  expressions  of 
the  text  in  question  in  the  same  manner,  unless  there 
be  some  special  and  positive  reason  for  doing  other- 
wise. But  such  positive  reasons,  it  seems,  are  wanting, 
whilst,  on  the  contrary,  both  Scripture  and  science 
afford  many  motives  for  believing  that  the  expression 
"all  men"  is  to  J)e  taken  in  a  restricted  sense,  as 
well  as  "all  flesh"  and  "all  the  earth." 

It  has  been  said  that  the  traditional  teaching  requires 
us  to  believe  that  the  Deluge  was  univensal,  at  least  so 


THE  NOACHIAN   DELUGE.  1 55 

far  as  man  is  concerned,  whatever  we  may  be  permit- 
ted to  hold  regarding  its  extent  in  other  respects. 
This,  hovv'ever,  is  scarcely  an  exact  statement  of  the 
facts  in  the  case.  The  general  consensus  of  the 
Fathers  and  Doctors  does  indeed  suppose  the  destruc- 
tion of  all  men  except  Noah  and  his  family.  Some 
exceptions,  however,  are  made,  and  these  logically  open 
the  door  to  as  many  more  as  the  advance  of  science  and 
the  demands  of  exegesis  may  render  necessary. 
^^  According  to  the  Septuagint,  for  instance,  Methusa- 
^  lem  lived  fourteen  years  after  the  Deluge.  But  as  he 
was  not  one  of  those  in  the  Ark,  some  of  the  Fathers 
and  commentators  assume  that  he  must  have  been 
saved  by  other  means.  Again,  Henoch  is  numbered 
by  some  commentators  among  those  who  escaped  from 
the  waters  of  the  Deluge,  and  we  are  told  that  he  was 
saved  because  the  water  did  not  reach  the  summit  of 
the  mountain  where  he  was  sojourning.  But  if  we 
can  allow  two  exceptions,  why  not  as  many  more  as 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  may  require?  This,  if 
not  a  logical  necessity,  is  at  least"  exegetical  con- 
sistency. To  give  a  restricted  meaning  to  some  of  the 
universal  terms  of  the  narrative  of  the  Deluge — "all 
the  earth"  and  "all  animals,"  for  instance — and  an 
absolute  meaning  to  others — "all  men" — would,  as 
Abbe  Motais  well  observes,  be  tantamount  to  employ- 
ing two  systems  of  weights  and  measures,  and  without 
V       any  scriptural  warrant. 

And  what  are  the  reasons,  it  may  be  asked,  that 
make  for  a  change  in  the  opinion  that  has  so  long 
obtained  regarding  the  universal  destruction  of  man- 
kind? They  are  twofold — some  are  biblical,  others 
are  .scientific. 


156  BIBLE,  SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

It  would  take  far  more  space  than  I  have  at  my  dis- 
posal for  a  complete  discussion  of  the  subject,  but  I 
may  at  least  indicate  the  nature  of  the  argument  on 
which  the  theory  is  based. 

Objections  on  the  Part  of  Science. 

The  first  serious  objections  to  a  universal  destruc- 
tion of  our  race  came  from  science.  The  relics  of 
man  found  in  various  parts  of  Europe  and  Great 
Britain — skeletons  in  caves,  flint  and  stone  imple- 
ments in  gravel-pits,  kitchen  utensils  in  lake  dwell- 
ings and  round  about  shell-deposits — seemed  to  give 
man  a  much  greater  antiquity  than  was  allowed  by 
the  generally-received  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic 
Deluge.  These  remains  seem  to  evince  that  men  had 
found  their  way  to  very  distant  parts  of  the  earth  at 
a  much  earlier  period  than  is  usually  supposed — at  a 
period  certainly  long  anterior  to  the  Deluge,  if  we 
are  to  rely  on  the  dates  ordinarily  assigned  to  the 
occurrence  of  this  catastrophe.  Unless,  then,  we  sup- 
pose the  Deluge  to  have  occurred  much  earlier  than 
the  majority  of  chronologists  are  disposed  to  concede, 
we  must  infer  that  some  of  the  relics  of  man  found  in 
Europe  and  Asia,  and  possibly  also  in  America,  are 
antediluvian  instead  of  postdiluvian.  And  if,  further, 
the  Deluge  affected  only  a  limited  portion  of  territory 
at  most — probably  only  a  small  part  of  Western  Asia, 
as  there  is  now  reason  to  believe — then  we  are  forced 
irresistibly  to  the  conclusion  that  there  were  human 
beings  in  various  other  parts  of  the  world  who  escaped 
the  inundation  described  in  Genesis. 

The  conclusions  of  geology  are  corroborated  by  the 


THE   NOACHIAN   DELUGE.  "  1 57 

teachings  of  archaeology,  ethnology,  physiology,  and 
linguistics.  Egyptologists  and  Assyriologists,  espe- 
cially, tell  us  of  races  and  peoples  inhabiting  Egypt 
and  parts  of  Asia  who  could  scarcely  have  descended 
from  Noah,  unless  it  be  assumed  that  chronologists 
have  been  entirely  wrong  regarding  the  dates  which 
they  have  fixed  for  the  Deluge.  Full  three  thousand 
years  b.  c.  the  Egyptians  found  in  the  valley  of  the 
Nile  tribes  belonging  to  the  negro  race — a  race,  there  is 
reason  to  believe,  that  must  have  forestalled  the  Egyp- 
tians in  the  occupation  of  the  country  by  at  least  sev- 
eral centuries. ' 

And  then  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  on  any  of 
the  known  principles  of  ethnology  and  physiology,  to 
account  for  the  great  difference  in  color,  in  anatom- 
ical and  social  characteristics,  that  distinguish  the 
negro  from  the  Egyptian.  It  is  scarcely  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  such  a  radical  divergence  could  have 
occurred  in  a  few  years,  as  we  are  forced  to  conclude 
if  we  derive  both  races  from  Noah.  The  only  alterna- 
tive, therefore,  is  to  admit  diat  the  negroes  in  Egypt 
and  in  other  parts  of  Africa  were  of  antediluvian  ori- 
gin, and  that  they  escaped  destruction  because  the 
waters  of  the  Flood  did  not  dbctend  to  the  coun- 
tries which   they  inhabited. 

History  and  ethnology  likewise  tell  us  of  antedilu- 
vians found  by  the  descendants  of  Noah — the  Hamites, 
Semites,  and  Japhetites — along  the  valleys  of  the  Tigris 
and  the  Euphrates,  and  of  an  ancient  yellow  race  that 

'See  Lenormant's  Histoire  ancienne  de  V Orient,  neuvieme 
edition,  tome  ii.  p.  47,  and  Maspero's  Histoire  ancieiine  des 
Peuples  de  V  Orient,  qiiatrieme  edition,  p.  17. 


158  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

the  sons  of  Japhet  discovered  when  they  reached  the 

I    lands  watered  by  the  Ganges  and  the  Indus.      And 

this  ancient  yellow  race  was  preceded  by  an  earlier 

^    black,  which  had  been  driven  to  the  forests  and  the 

mountains  when  the  country  was  taken  possession  of 

\   by  the  former. 

But,  even  granting  it  possible  to  explain  away  the 
difficulties  urged  by  the  sciences  just  mentioned,  we 
are  confronted  with  almost,  if  not  quite,  as  insuperable 
objections  presented  in  the  name  of  linguistics.  There 
are,  as  is  known,  three  great  families  of  languages — 
^  the  monosyllabic  and  the  agglutinate,  spoken  by  the 
N  yellow,  black,  and  red  races,  and  the  flexional  lan- 
(^guages,  spoken  by  the  white  race  or  all  those  who 
can  be  traced  with  certainty  to  Noah  or  his  sons. 
The  monosyllabic  and  agglutinate  languages  are  so 
entirely  unlike  the  flexional  that  it  is  simply  impossi- 
ble to  account  for  their  difference,  unless  we  put  back 
the  Deluge  much  farther  than  any  system  of  biblical 
chronology  will  warrant,  or  admit  that  those  who  speak 
monosyllabic  and  agglutijiate  tongues  belong  to  pre- 
Noachic  races,  and  that  they  all,  by  reason  of  their 
being  far  away  from  the  land  of  the  Deluge,  escaped 
unharmed. 

If  we  admit  what  seem  to  be  the  logical  and  incon- 
trovertible deductions  of  geology,  archaeology,  ethnol- 
ogy, physiology,  and  linguistics,  we  remove  at  once  all 
the  difficulties  that  are  urged  in  the  name  of  these  sci- 
ences, and  find  ourselves  in  a  position  to  reconcile  the 
many  discrepancies  which  have  so  long  puzzled  the 
brains  of  exegetist  and  apologist. 


the  noachian  deluge.  159 

The  Deluge  in  the  Light  of  Exegesis. 

Singularly  enough,  when  the  results  of  scientific 
discovery  proclaimed  the  necessity  of  revising  the 
interpretations  that  had  been  in  vogue  regarding  the 
total  destruction  of  the  race  by  the  Deluge,  it  was 
found  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  Sacred  Text  that 
forbade  such  a  revision.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  found 
that  the  narrative  of  the  Deluge  might  be  reconciled 
with  the  opinion  which  exo^pts  a  part  of  the  human 
race  from  the  catachsm.  /God,  it  was  said,  inspired 
Moses  to  write  an  account  of  the  Deluge.  Moses 
makes  use  of  a  written  document  or  avails  himself 
of  an  oral  tradition  which  was  faithfully  preserved 
among  the  descendants  of  the  patriarchs.  >  Noah  and 
the  members  of  his  family  had  seen  the  waters  invade 
all  the  country  which  was  visible  to  them,  and  had 
witnessed  the  destruction  of  all  animals  and  men 
round  about  them.  They  were  naturally  persuaded, 
therefore,  that  all  the  earth  and  that  every  living 
thing  on  its  surface  had  been  submerged.  Hence 
the  universal  expressions  made  use  of  by  them  in 
reporting  the  event:  "All  flesh,"  "all  things  wherein 
there  is  the  breath  of  life,"  "all  the  high  mountains 
under  the  heaven."  Moses  had  appropriated  the  doc- 
uments at  hand,  and,  persuaded  of  the  universality  of 
the  Deluge,  made  no  change  ig.  the  expressions  used. 
The  Holy  Ghost,  having  in  view  only  the  narrative  of 
a  prodigious  inundation  destined  to  punish  the  crimes 
of  mankind,  did  not  prevent  the  inspired  writer  from 
using  these  general  expressions,  inasmuch  as  these, 
when  compared  with  similar  expressions  in  other  parts 
of  the   Bible,   were  susceptible  of   a  more  restricted 

\ 


l6o  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

sense.  This  restricted  sense,  applied  to  the  expressions 
used,  would  at  a  later  date  correct  the  inexact  or  false 
idea  that  had  been  entertained  regarding  the  extent  of 
the  Deluge.  "For  this  reason,  then,  if  the  whole 
question  of  the  non-universality  of  the  Deluge  were 
to  be  limited  to  the  discussion  of  the  simple  text  of 
Moses,  there  would  be  in  this  reasoning  a  fruitful  ele- 
ment of  solution."  ' 

Again,  it  had  all  along  been  assumed,  at  least  by 
the  majority  of  commentators,  that  the  Deluge  was 
primarily,  if  not  entirely,  an  act  of  divine  vengeance 
occasioned  by  the  sins  of  the  world.  But  the  mercy 
of  God,  as  displayed  in  the  purification  of  the  race  ; 
His  providence,  as  manifested  in  the  conservation  in 
all  its  integrity  of  the  patriarchal  line,  and  in  a  still 
more  ineffable  manner  in  the  great  work  of  Redemp- 
tion, from  which  the  Deluge  may  not  be  disassociated, 
— are  factors  that  are  lost  sight  of  in  such  a  circum- 
scribed view  of  the  great  catastrophe.  "They  forget," 
as  Abb^  Motais  well  observes,  "the  divine  idea  that 
embraces  both  Eden  and  Golgotha — the  promise  made 
in  the  garden  of  Paradise  and  its  fulfilment  on  the 
summit  of  Calvary." 

No,  the  Deluge  was  not  simply  an  act  of  divine 
vengeance:  it  was  rather  a  means  which  God,  in  His 
wisdom  and  goodness,  employed  for  preserving  intact 
the  patriarchal  line  from  which  was  to  descend  the 
Redeemer  of  the  world;  it  was  a  necessity  in  order 
that  "the  sons  of  God"  might  be  preserved  from 
contamination  by  associating  with  "  the  daughters  of 
men." 

And  just  here  we  come  upon  one  of  the  chief  dif- 

'  P.  Corluy,  in  La  Cofiiroverse,  pp.  74,  75,  May,  1885. 


THE   NOACHIAN    DELUGE.  l6l 

ficiilties  ill  the  way  of  a  true  insight  into  the  provi- 
^  dential  reasons  for  the  Deluge.  What  are  meant  by 
the  expressions  "sons  of  God"  and  "daughters  of 
men"?  Numerous  and  different  interpretations  have 
been  given.  Many  have  imagined  that  by  the  sons 
of  God  are  understood  the  Sethites,  and  by  the 
daughters  of  men  are  designated  the  Cainites.  But 
a  closer  examination  of  the  Sacred  Text  seems  to 
evince  that  Moses  intentionally  ignored  the  Cainites, 
as  he  did  the  descendants  of  the  other  children  of 
Adam.  He  was  not  concerned  with  them.  They  did 
not  enter  into  the  scope  of  his  narrative.  His  object 
was  to  show  the  genealogy  of  the  patriarchs  from 
Noah  through  Seth  to  Adam.  After  the  Deluge  he 
deals  only  with  Noah  and  the  unbroken  patriarchal 
line  as  descended  from  him.  That  there  were  among 
the  mountains  of  Central  Asia  or  along  the  valley  of 
the  Nile  descendants  of  Cain  and  of  other  children  of 
Adam  he  may  or  may  not  have  known.  But  whether 
he  knew  of  their  existence  or  not — and  we  can  scarcely 
believe  that  he  was  in  ignorance  of  their  existence — it 
matters  not. /He  was  not  writing  a  history  of  the 
world.  He  was  tracing  out  a  synopsis  of  the  history 
of  the  Hebrew  people,  the  chosen  people  of  the  Lord, 
the  sons  of  God,  To  him  all  who  were  not  Hebrews 
were  "  Goim,"  as  in  the  estimation  of  Athenian  writers 
all  who  were  not  Greeks  were  barbarians.  No  others 
entered  into  the  plan  of  his   narrativCy/ 

The  Cainites  had  long  before  emigrated  to  distant 

parts   of  the  world.     The   other  descendants   of  the 

children  of  Adam  not  mentioned  in  the  etlinographic 

chart  are  absent  from  the  record  of  the  Deluge,  because 

\    they  too  had  long  previously  sought  a  home  in  other 

11 


1 62  BIBLE,   SCIENCE.  AND   FAITH. 

far-off  lands,  and  did  not,  consequently,  enter  into  the 
purview  of  the  world  spoken  of  by  the  inspired  writer. 
To  Moses,  according  to  Abbe  Motais,  the  patriarchs 
were  the  sous  of  God;  the  daughters  of  men  were  the 
women  of  the  people  who  lived  in  their  immediate 
vicinity.  To  Moses  the  sons  of  God  and  the  daugh- 
ters of  men  were  "all  men" — the  univer si  homines — 
whose  destruction  was  decreed  and  carried  into  execu- 
tion by  the  Almighty.  All  the  world  was  corrupt  if 
the  world  of  the  patriarch  became  tainted.  What 
matters  it,  from  the  Messianic  point  of  view,  that  at 
the  moment  of  the  Incarnation  virginity  no  longer 
existed  in  the  world,  provided  it  was  still  conserved  in 
the  heart  of  Mary  ?  What  matters  it,  from  the  same 
point  of  view,  that  at  the  time  of  the  Deluge  corrup- 
tion infected  the  entire  earth,  provided  that  Noah, 
remaining  true  patriarch,  is  able  to  carry  forward  the 
world  to  Jacob  and  throiigh  Jacob  to  Jesus  Christ?  To 
effect  the  object  in  view  it  was  not  necessary  to  drown 
the  entire  race.  Moses  sees  this,  and  does  not,  there- 
fore, feel  constrained  to  say  it  was  necessary  for  God  to 
do  that  which  it  was  not  necessary  for  Him  to  do. 
Viewing  the  Deluge,  then,  as  affecting  only  a  part  of 
the  human  race,  there  is  not  a  single  word  in  the  nar- 
rative that  does  not  admit  of  a  ready  explanation.' 

And  yet  more.  Such  an  interpretation  throws  a 
flood  of  light  on  a  number  of  other  passages  in  Scrip- 
ture that  have  always  been  involved  in  the  greatest 
obscurity.  It  will  suffice  for  our  present  purpose  to 
adduce  a  couple  of  paragraphs  from  the  celebrated 
prophecy  of  Balaam,  as  recorded  in  the  book  of 
Numbers. 

'  Motais,  op.  cit.,  p.  298. 


THE   NOACHIAN   DELUGE.  163 

"And  when  he  (the  prophet  Balaam)  saw  Amalek, 
he  took  np  his  parable  and  said:  Amalek,  the  begin- 
ning of  nations^  whose  latter  ends  shall  be  destroyed." 

"  He  saw  also  the  Cainite  ;  and  took  up  his  parable 
and  said:  Thy  habitation  indeed  is  strong:  but  though 
thon  built  thy  nest  in  a  rock,  lo  !  he  also,  Cain,  shall 
be  exterminated."  ' 

What  are  we  to  understand  by  the  words  "  Cainite" 
and  "the  beginning  of  the  nations"?  Leaving  aside 
the  various  interpretations  that  have  been  given  by 
different  commentators,  is  it  not  clear  that,  if  we 
accept  the  theory  of  the  Deluge  as  just  explained,  we 
have  here  meant  the  descendants  of  Cain  who  had 
escaped  the  great  catastrophe — that  the  prophet  refers 
to  an  antediluvian  race,  and  that,  as  compared  with 
the  descendants  of  Noah,  who  were  post-diluvian, 
they  were  in  very  truth  the  beginning  of  nations? 

I  might  cite  other  passages  from  the  Old  Testament 
which  corroborate  this  view  in  the  most  striking  and 
unexpected  manner.  I  might  adduce  numerous  facts 
of  archaeology  that  seem  to  put  such  an  interpretation 
beyond  doubt,  but  to  develop  the  argument  in  full 
would  require  more  space  than  I  am  here  granted. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  probable,  if  not 
certain,  that  the  Deluge  was  universal  neither  geo- 
graphically nor  zoolo'gically  nor  ethnographically. 
What  the  extent  of  the  Flood  was  cannot  be  deter- 
mined, but  it  seems  to  be  almost  certain  that  it  was 
comparatively  limited,  both  as  to  the  amount  of  ter- 
ritory submerged  and  to  the  number  of  the  human 
race  destroyed.^ 

'  Numbers  xxiv.  20,  21. 

^  One  of  the  first  to  advance  the  theory  of  the  non-nniversal- 


164  bible,  science,  and  faith. 

Summary  and  ConcIvUSion. 

The  learned  Oratorian,  Abbe  Motais,  as  the  result 
of  a  critical  and  exhaustive  examination  of  the  latest 

ity  of  the  Deluge  as  to  man  was  Oleaster,  a  Dominican  inquisi- 
tor in  Portugal,  in  the  sixteenth  century.  He  based  his  the- 
ory on  the  celebrated  prophecy  of  Balaam.  He  was  followed 
in  1656  by  La  Peyrere  in  his  famous  work  on  Prcadaviitcs. 
During  the  two  following  centuries  the  same  theory  was  de- 
fended by  several  other  writers  of  note,  especially  Cuvier  and 
Quatrefages.  In  1853  and  1856  attention  was  called  to  it  by  the 
works  of  Klee  and  Schoebel.  In  1866,  D'Omalius  d'Halloy 
advocated  it  in  an  address  delivered  before  the  class  of  science 
of  the  Belgian  Academy.  In  1869  and  subsequently  the  theory 
was  developed  and  strengthened  in  a  remarkable  manner  by  the 
learned  historian  and  Orientalist,  Fran9ois  Lenormant.  In  1877, 
Dr.  Scholz  taught  it  in  the  Catholic  University  of  Wurzburg, 
whilst  in  1881,  1882,  and  1885,  Jean  d'Estienne  supported  it  in 
a  series  of  learned  articles  in  the  Revue  des  Questions  scien- 
tifiques.  In  1883  it  was  defended  in  Tm  Controverse  by  Mgr. 
Harlez,  a  professor  in  the  University  of  Louvain,  whilst  in  the 
yea;r  following  it  was  advocated  by  M.  G.  Dubor  in  the  Museon 
and  by  Mgr.  Clifford  in  the  Tablet.  But,  by  all  odds,  the  most 
able  and  exhaustive  work  that  has  yet  appeared  on  the  subject 
is  the  one  Avhich  I  have  so  frequently  quoted  in  these  pages — 
Le  Deluge  biblique  devant  la  Foi,  I'Ecriture  et  la  Science,  by 
the  late  lamented  Abbe  ]\Iotais  of  the  OratorA'  at  Rennes.  I 
may  also  refer  to  La  Non-universalite  du  Deluge  and  Encore 
La  Non-universalite  du  Deluge  by  the  Abbe  Robert,  likewise  of 
the  Oratory  of  Rennes,  who  strongly  champions  the  theory  of 
his  confrere,  Abbe  ]\Iotais,  as  well  as  to  the  masterh^  Apologie 
des  Christenthiuns  b}^  Dr.  Schanz,  and  to  the  admirable  "  Scrip- 
tural Questions" — Second  Series,  No.  4 — contributed  to  the 
Catholic  World  by  the  erudite  Father  A.  F.  Hewit.  More  re- 
cent studies  on  the  subject  which  will  well  repay  perusal  are 
the  works  of  Howorth  already  referred  to,  and  Le  Deluge  de- 
vant la  Critique  historique,  par  M.  Raymond  de  Girard. 


THE   NOACHIAN    DELUGE.  165 

conclusions  of  science  and  biblical  criticism  anent  the 
Noachian  Deluge,  summarizes  his  investigations  as 
follows: 

"The  logic  of  exegesis,  the  laws  of  hermeneutics, 
the  study  of  parallel  passages  and  of  the  personages 
therein  referred  to,  all  keep  us  within  the  circle  in 
which  the  author  (Moses)  confines  himself.  Not  a 
word,  not  an  idea,  not  a  reflection  obliges  us  to  go  out- 
side of  it.  He  is,  then,  in  perfect  accord  with  the  plan 
and  scope  of  his  narrative  and  of  his  entire  book  when, 
after  more  than  two  thousand  years  of  history  conse- 
crated solely  to  the  patriarchs,  we  perceive  in  the  event 
that  is  to  reform  the  lineage  of  the  sons  of  God  an  inun- 
dation which  sweeps  away  the  world  of  the  patriarchs 
and  not  the  world  of  humanity. 

"And  is  this  saying  enough?  Is  not  this  conclu- 
sion more  than  permitted  by  logic  ?  Does  not  Moses 
demand  it?  Do  not  sound  criticism  and  prudent  exe- 
gesis require  it?  All  other  systems  leave  the  mind 
uneasy  and  in  suspense.  Many  objections  remain 
without  even  a  plausible  solution.  It  is  necessary  to 
multiply  miracles  and  to  have  recourse  to  diverse  expe- 
dients. But  with  the  exegesis  we  have  indicated  every 
difiiculty  disappears,  not  as  the  result  of  multiplied  and 
distinct  efforts,  but  by  a  single  stroke — by  the  simple 
admission  of  the  non-universality  of  the  Deluge.  This 
is  not  a  pure  hypothesis.  It  is  implicitly  revealed  in 
the  plan  of  Genesis;  it  is  explicitly  proclaimed  in  the 
Pentateuch.  The  Rationalist  is  forced  to  admit  it; 
the  believer  can  accept  it  without  denying  any  article 
of  dogma.  The  imperfection  and  the  insufiiciency  of 
the  older  traditional  exegesis  urge  it;  its  tendencies 
and  principles  invite  it.     What  is  there,  then,  to  pre- 


1 66  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

elude  such  a  view?  Ouly  a  siugle  word — all — Oinnis ; 
that  Omnis  which  neither  the  Fathers  nor  the  Scholas- 
tics nor  modern  interpreters  found  to  offer  any  special 
embarrassment;  that  Omnis  which  a  hundred  scrip- 
tural passages  show  is  so  often  hyperbolic,  which  even 
the  narrative  of  the  Flood  impels  us  to  restrict,  and 
which  the  design  of  the  author  explains  always  sa 
naturally  and  so  necessarily.  No,  in  truth,  we  do  not 
find  any  motives  for  rejecting  a  solution  at  once  so 
simple  and  so  comprehensive  and  so  rational. 

"Such  is  the  thesis,  or,  if  we  wish,  such  is  the 
hypothesis.  Let  it  be  taken  up  and  studied,  and  con- 
tradicted even,  but  let  it  not  be  misrepresented.  It  is 
not  the  product  of  doubt,  but  of  faith.  It  is  the  off- 
spring not  of  indifference,  but  of  a  passionate  love  of 
the  Scriptures — of  a  desire  to  defend  and  honor  them, 
and  of  a  firm  conviction  of  the  truth  of  their  teachings. 
It  has  been  written  with  the  greatest  respect  for  all  the 
verities  of  religion  as  revealed  in  the  Bible,  and  comes 
from  the  heart  rather  than  from  the  pen.  It  is  not 
born  of  the  spirit  of  sect  or  party;  its  object  is  not  to 
give  support  to  the  yet  doubtful  conclusions  of  profane 
science.  The  affirmations  and  attacks  of  science  have 
been  for  us  only  an  incentive  to  labor,  and  our  study  is 
one  which  is,  before  all  and  above  all,  one  of  pure  exe- 
gesis. That  which  to  our  mind  is  most  forcible  and 
most  convincing  are  arguments  which  are  purely  and 
simply  biblical.  He  who  adheres  to  the  plan  of  Gene- 
sis as  formulated  by  jNIoses  is  on  solid  ground.  This 
is  the  true  citadel.  Unless  driven  from  this  no  one  can 
ever,  unless  the  Church  speaks,  justly  refuse  to  a 
Catholic  the  liberty  to  reject,  in  the  name  of  Moses 
himself,    the    total    destruction    of   humanity   by   the 


THE  NOACHIAN  DELUGE.  167 

Deluge.  It  is  this  right  to  liberty,  we  repeat  in  con- 
clusion, that  we  have  above  all  things  wished  to  estab- 
lish. In  defending  this  hypothesis  we  have  carefully 
measured  our  words  and  weighed  our  motives,  and 
have  all  along  had  before  our  eyes  the  difficulties  of 
other  systems  before  which  so  many  minds  recoil. 
Let  others  judge  of  the  value  of  these  two  motives,  but 
let  us  be  allowed  to  think  that  they  are  such  as  are 
justified  by  the  severest  and  most  exact  exegesis. 

"  If  criticism  ratifies  this  thesis,  ifwill  have — and 
this  is  something  in  its  favor — the  honor  of  being 
established,  not  under  the  guarantee  of  profane  sci- 
ence nor  in  consequence  of  some  hostile  discovery, 
but  as  the  result  of  a  free  and  respectful  effort  of 
Catholic  exegesis.  It  cannot,  then,  be  said  that  it 
is  reason  that  dispossesses  faith.  Rather  must  it  be 
affirmed  that  it  is  faith  that  perfects  belief,  since  it  is 
Moses  who  explains  himself  by  what  he  has  written. 

"Those  who  may  reject  the  thesis,  if  such  there 
should  be,  cannot  at  least  refuse  it  the  merit  of  being 
produced  under  the  domination  of  great  and  holy  pre- 
occupations, since  its  aim  and  purport  are  to  remov^e 
objections  urged  against  Catholic  faith,  to  tranquillize 
souls,  and  to  reassure  consciences.  Neither  can  any 
one  deny  that  it  is  calculated  to  yield  happy  results. 
It  makes  God  equally  great  in  showing  Him  more 
benign,  and  the  lesson  it  inculcates,  being,  as  it  is,  less 
marked  with  the  impress  of  vengeance,  is  also  salu- 
tary. It  exhibits,  better  than  any  other  theory  and 
in  a  brighter  light,  the  lofty  destiny  of  Israel;  the  gene- 
alogical union — by  some  perfidiously  denied — of  the 
Synagogue  and  the  Church;  the  continued  and  merci- 
ful action  of  God  toward  the  world  in  order  to  bring  it 


l68  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

to  the  Messiah.  It  places  beyond  all  attack  the  grand 
dogma  of  Adamic  descent.  It  reveals  tlie  majestic 
unity  of  the  plan  of  Genesis,  and  affords  a  solid  sup- 
port to  the  authenticity  of  the  Divine  Book.  Finally, 
it  gives  Catholic  exegesis  the  advantage  of  acting  on 
the  offensive  against  the  prejudices  of  a  Rationalism 
which  perversely  avails  itself  of  the  imperfect  infor- 
mation of  its  opponents  and  of  the  exaggerated  opin- 
ions which  they  maintain,  rather  through  apathetic 
confidence  than  from  enlightened  respect  for  the  Book 
of  books. ' " 

*  La  Deluge  biblique,  p.  339,  et  seq.  It  affords  me  great 
pleasure  to  reproduce  here  the  opinion  of  the  learned  Cardi- 
nal Gonzalez  on  the  Deluge  as  summarized  in  his  masterly 
work,  La  Biblia y  la  Ciencia.  His  Eminence  is  not  only  a 
profound  theologian  and  philosopher,  and  one  full}'  abreast 
with  the  latest  advances  in  the  natural  and  physical  sciences, 
but  he  at  the  same  time  stands  in  the  forefront  of  contempo- 
rary apologists  on  all  questions  bearing  on  science  and  religion. 
A  man  of  pre-eminently  liberal  and  comprehensive  ideas,  his 
views  on  all  subjects  which  he  has  discussed  deserve  careful 
pondering.  Referring  to  the  question  of  the  ethnographical 
universality-  of  the  Deluge,  this  illustrious  author  declares: 
"  La  lucha  real  esta  hoy  entablada  entre  la  teoria  de  la  univer- 
salidad  restringida  que  pudiera  denominarse  antropologica,  la 
teoria  que  admite  el  exterminio  de  todos  los  hombres,  fuera  de 
la  familia  de  Noe.  y  la  teoria  de  la  non-universalidad  antropo- 
logica, la  teoria  que  admite  que,  ademas  de  la  familia  de  N06, 
se  libraron  otros  hombres  del  Diluvio.  Considerado  el  pro- 
blema  con  relacion  al  testo  biblico  y  d  la  tradicion  ecclesias- 
tica,  la  primera  teona  se  presenta  como  mas  probable;  consi- 
derado con  relacion  a  la  ciencia,  parece  mas  probable  la  segunda: 
hoy  por  hoy,  ninguna  de  las  dos  puede  considerarse  como  cierta 
y  demostrada,  3'  una  y  otra  pueden  ser  defendidas,  como  mas  6 
menos  probables,  lo  mismo  en  el  terreno  exegetico  que  en  el 
terreno  cientifico. 

"  En  todo  caso,  y  cualquiera  que  sea  la  solucion  cierta  y  de- 


THE   NOACHIAN    DELUGE.  169 

No  better  illustration  than  the  subject  we  have  been 
discussing  could  be  instanced  of  the  perfect  liberty  of 
opinion  in  matters  not  of  faith  which  the  Church  per- 
mits her  children.  More  than  this.  Not  only  does 
she  grant  us  the  greatest  liberty  of  thought,  but  she 
also  encourages  us  to  add  to  her  riches  by  appropriat- 
ing the  treasures  of  the  Egyptians.  Has  not  Leo 
XIII.  in  his  admirable  Encyclical  of  February  15,  1882, 
exhorted  us  to  make  use  of  the  discoveries  of  modern 
science?  and  does  he  not  declare  in  a  few  words,  in 
his  letter  throwing  open  the  treasures  of  the  Vatican 
to  the  scholars  of  the  world,  what  is  the  spirit  which 
should  animate  every  honest  investigator  and  cham- 
pion of  science?  The  Church  does  not  fear  the  truth. 
She  cannot  abet  what  is  false.' 

And  let  no  one  imagine  that  such  liberty  of  opin- 
ion, such  freedom  of  discussion,  are  calculated  to  fos- 
ter rationalism  and  skepticism.  The  very  opposite  is 
the  case.  Has  not  Renan,  in  his  Sojivemrs  cV Ejtfance 
et  de  Jeunesse^  told  us  that  what  he  took  as  the  Cath- 
olic teaching  regarding  thfe    Deluge  was  one  of  the 

finitiva  del  problema,  si  alguna  vez  llega  a  obtenerse,  en  nada 
affectara  ni  a  la  verdad  de  la  Biblia  ni  a  la  verdad  de  la  ciencia. 
Cnalquiera  que  sea  la  solucion,  para  el  hombre  de  la  fe  y  de  la 
ciencia,  para  el  escritor  cristiano,  la  Biblia  seguira  siendo  depo- 
sitaria  de  la  palabra  divina,  la  Iglesia  seguira  siendo — cohimna 
et  firmavientum  veritatis,  y  la  ciencia  seguira  siendo  hija 
predilecta  del  Dios  de  las  ciencias — Deus  scientiarmn  Domitms 
est.'" — La  Biblia y  la  Ciencia,  tomo  ii.  p.  683. 

'  The  memorable  words  of  the  illustrious  Pontiff  are:  "  Illud 
in  primis  scribentium  observetur  animo;  primam  esse  historise 
legem  ne  quid  falsi  dicere  audeat:  deinde  ne  quid  veri  non  audeat; 
ne  qua  suspicio  gratise  sit  in  scribendo,  ne  qua  simultatis." 

^  P.  293. 


170  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

prime  causes  of  his  infidelity  ?  And  have  not  many 
others  in  a  similar  manner  suffered  the  pangs  of  doubt, 
if  not  the  loss  of  faith,  in  consequence  of  mistaking 
the  opinions  of  the  Fathers  and  Doctors  in  matters 
of  science  and  philosophy  for  the  dogmatic  definitions 

'   of  the  Church?     And  have  not  others,  again,  forged 
intellectual    fetters    for    themselves    in    consequence 

i    of  the  erroneous  notions  they  entertained  regarding 
the  sense  of  the  Church — the  Intellcctus  Catholiais — 

f  which,  far  from  impeding  their  researches  in  the  do- 

I   main  of  science,  is  as  broad  and  as  liberal  as  Truth 
itself? 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  misguided  zeal  for  the 
integrity  of  the  Scriptures — a  misleading  reverence 
for  the  authority  of  traditional  and  scholastic  teaching. 
It  will  not  do  to  interpret  the  Sacred  Text  under  the 
influence  of  preconceived  notions,  especially  when  such 
notions  have  no  positive  scriptural  warrant.  Neither 
will  it  do  to  attribute  greater  weight  to  the  teachings 
of  the  Fathers  and  the  Schoolmen  than  these  eminent 
Doctors  of  the  Church  intended  they  should  have. 
If  St.  Augustine,  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  St.  Jerome, 
St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  or  Albertus  ]\Iagnus  had  before 
them  all  the  facts  disclosed  by  modern  science,  would 
they  have  expressed  themselves  on  many  questions  as 
.they  did?  We  do  them  a  great  wrong  to  suppose  for 
a  moment  that  they  would.  If  they  were  living  now, 
can  we  have  any  doubt  about  the  character  of  their 
teaching?  Surely  not.  It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose 
that  the  keenest  and  the  most  comprehensive  and  the 
most  liberal  minds  the  world  has  ever  known  would 
feel  that  they  were  committed  to  views  that  had  been 
expressed  when  most  of  the  data  necessary  for  a  proper 


THE  NOACHIAN  DELUGE.  171 

understanding  of  the  subjects  discussed  were  entirely 
wanting.  Such  an  assumption,  aside  from  being  an 
injustice  to  them,  would  be  an  exhibition  of  egotism 
on  our  part  that  would  be  simply  intolerable. 

To  find  fault  with  them  for  having  one  or  two  thou- 
sand years  ago  a  less  extensive  knowledge  of  the  nat- 
ural and  physical  sciences  than  we  ourselves  possess 
would  be  simply  preposterous.'  As  well  might  it  be 
affirmed  that  we  should  now  know  as  much  about  the 
inductive  sciences  as  will  our  successors  ten  or  twenty 
centuries  hence.  Such  an  admission  would  be  tanta- 
mount to  asserting  that  the  sum-total  of  natural 
knowledge  is  independent  of  research;  that  the  nat- 
ural and  physical  sciences  are  not  of  a  progressive 
character;  that,  contrary  to  the  very  nature  of  these 
sciences — based,  as  they  are,  on  the  observation  of 
facts  and  phenomena — they  are  incapable  of  develop- 
ment. It  is  obvious  that  no  sane  mind  can  hold, 
much  less  defend,  such  a  view.  We  must  judge  the 
Fathers  and  Doctors  of  the  Church  as  we  ourselves, 
under  similar  circumstances,  would  wish  to  be  judged. 
We  must  view  their  opinions  on  the  "obscure  things 

^  A  fair  sample  of  this  irrational  way  of  considerino-  the 
opinions  of  the  earlier  commentators  is  afforded  b}-  Andrew 
D.  White  in  his  "Warfare  of  Science"  and  in  his  "New- 
Chapters  on  the  Warfare  of  Science,"  published  in  the  Popular 
Science  Monthly.  A  striking  instance  of  tgnoratw  elencJii  or 
of  suppressio  veri  regarding  the  subject  here  discussed  is  seen 
in  two  articles — "Lights  of  the  Church  and  Light  of  Science" 
and  "Hasisadra's  Adventure" — by  Prof.  Huxley  in  the  Nhie- 
tec7ith  Century,  reprinted  in  his  latest  work,  Some  Controverted 
Questions.  Prof.  Huxley  is  a  great  biologist,  but  in  these 
two  articles  he  has  conspicuously  demonstrated  his  abilit}-  to 
outdo  Don  Quixote  in  his  onslaught  on  windmills. 


172  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

of  nature"  as  they  themselves,   in   the  light  of  onr 
present  knowledge,  would  view  them. 

"It  often  happens,"  says  St.  Augustine,  "that  one 
who  is  not  a  Christian  hath  some  knowledge  derived 
from  the  clearest  arguments  or  from  the  evidence  of 
his  senses  about  the  earth,  about  the  heavens,  about 
the  other  elements  of  this  world,  about  the  movements 
and  revolutions  or  about  the  size  and  distances  of  the 
stars,  about  certain  eclipses  of  the  sun  and  moon, 
about  the  course  of  the  years  and  the  seasons,  about 
the  nature  of  animals,  plants,  and  minerals,  and  about 
other  things  of  a  like  kind.  Now,  it  is  an  unseemly 
and  mischievous  thing,  and  greatly  to  be  avoided,  that 
a  Christian  man,  speaking  on  such  matters  as  if  ac- 
cording to  the  authority  of  Christian  Scripture,  should 
talk  so  foolishly  that  the  unbeliever,  on  hearing  him  and 
observing  the  extravagance  of  his  error,  should  hardly 
be  able  to  refrain  from  laughing.  And  the  great  mis- 
chief is,  not  so  much  that  the  man  himself  is  laughed 
at  for  his  errors,  but  that  our  authors  are  believed  by 
people  without  the  Church  to  have  taught  such  things, 
and  so  are  condemned  as  unlearned  and  cast  aside,  to  the 
great  loss  of  those  for  whose  salvation  we  are  so  much 
concerned.  For  when  they  find  one  belonging  to  the 
Christian  body  falling  into  error  on  a  subject  with 
which  they  themselves  are  thoroughly  conversant,  and 
when  they  see  him,  moreover,  enforcing  his  groundless 
opinion  by  the  authority  of  our  sacred  books,  how 
are  they  likely  to  put  trust  in  those  books  about  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  hope  of  eternal  life 
and  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  having-  alreadv  come  to 
regard  them  as  fallacious  about  those  things  they  had 
themselves  learned  from  observation  or  from  unques- 


THE  NOACHIAN  DELUGE.  173 

tionable  evidence  ?  And,  indeed,  it  were  not  easy  to 
tell  what  trouble  and  sorrow  some  rash  and  presump- 
tuous men  bring  upon  their  prudent  brethren,  who, 
when  they  are  charged  with  a  perverse  and  false  opin- 
ion by  those  who  do  not  accept  the  authority  of  our 
books,  attempt  to  put  forward  these  same  holy  books 
in  defence  of  that  which  they  have  lightly  and  falsely 
asserted,  sometimes  even  quoting  from  memory  what 
they  think  will  suit  their  purpose,  and  putting  forth 
many  words,  without  well  understanding  either  what 
they  say  or  what  they  are  talking  about."  ^ 

The  Angelic  Doctor,  who  quotes  with  approval  these 
words  of  St.  Augustine,  is  not  less  explicit  in  the 
statement  of  similar  views.  "As  for  myself,"  he 
declares,  "I  find  that  the  safest  way  regarding  those 
opinions  held  by  the  generality  of  philosophers  and 
reconcilable  with  our  faith  is  not  to  affirm  them  as 
dogmas,  .  .  .  and  not  to  reject  them  as  contrary  to 
faith,  for  fear  of  affording  the  wise  ones  of  the  world 
an  occasion  to  contemn  the  teachings  of  religion."" 

Elsewhere  he  observes:  "  In  questions  of  this  sort 
there  are  two  things  to  be  observed:  First,  that  the 
truth  of  Scripture  be  inviolably  maintained;  secondly, 
since  Scripture  doth  admit  of  diverse  interpretations, 
that  we  must  not  cling  to  any  particular  exposition 
with  such  pertinacity  that  if  what  we  supposed  to  be 
the  teaching  of  Scripture  should  afterward  turn  out  to 
be  clearly  false,  we  should  nevertheless  still  presume  to 
put  it  forward,  lest  thereby  we  should  expose  the  In- 
spired Word  of  God  to  the  derision  of  unblievers  and 
shut  them  out  from  the  way  of  salvation."  ^ 

'  De  Genesi  ad  Litteram,  lib.  i.  cap.  xix.  -  Opusc,  ix. 

^  Sumtna  Theologica,  Pars  Prima,  Qusest.  Ixvii.,  art.  i. 


174  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

In  weighing  the  opinions  of  the  Fathers  and  Doctors 
of  the  Church  we  must  always  carefully  distinguish 
the  object  of  faith  from  the  motives  on  which  it  is 
based.  Errors  in  physics,  zoology,  history,  criticism, 
exegesis  So  not  impair  the  authority  or  the  magisterium 
of  the  Fathers  and  Doctors  when  speaking  in  their 
capacity  of  witnesses  to  Tradition  and  of  the  common 
faith  of  the  Church.  We  may  not,  indeed,  without 
new  and  weighty  reasons — iiovcr  rationis  pondere^  as 
Pallavicini  expresses  it — reject  the  teaching  of  such 
venerable  authorities  in  questions  like  the  one  now 
under  discussion,  but  ii^hen  sufficiently  grave  reasons 
are  forthcoming  we  may  safely,  and  without  incurring 
the  note  of  rashness — temeritatis  nota — modify  our 
opinions  so  as  to  make  them  harmonize  with  the  cer- 
tain data  and  conclusions  of  science. 


PART   III. 

Ube  Uqc  6t  tbe  Ibumau  IRace  accorMno  to  /IDoDeru 
Science  ant)  Biblical  Cbjonolog^. 


PART   III. 

XI be  Boe  of  tbe  Ibuman  IRace  accorMna  to  /IDo&ern 
Science  anC)  Biblical  (Ibronolog^. 


CHAPTER   I. 


the  antiquity  of  man  according  to  astronomy 
and  history. 

Introduction. 

"  ^  I  ^HE  pivotal  centre,"  says  the  learned  Father 
A  Hewit,  "around  which  a  whole  system  of 
topics  turns,  is  the  topic  of  the  antiquity  of  the  human 
race."  *  With  the  exception  of  evolution,  v/hich  has  a 
literature  of  its  own  and  counts  its  volumes  by  thou- 
sands and  tens  of  thousands,  no  other  scientific  subject, 
it  may  be  safely  asserted,  has  provoked  so  much  dis- 
cussion as  has  the  antiquity  of  our  race.  For  a  full 
hundred  years  the  question  of  the  age  of  the  human 
species  has  engaged  the  attention  of  scientists  and  bib- 
lical scholars,  an-d  yet,  notwithstanding  all  that  has 
been  done  in  the  various  departments  of  knowledge, 
we  are  still  very  far  from  having  definite  information 
on  many  of  the  points  in  dispute. 

Many  causes  might  be  assigned  for  the  interest  that 
has  been  manifested  in  the  question — an  interest 
which,  far  from  subsiding,  seems  to  enhance  as  time 

'  "Scriptural  Questions,"  the  Catholic  World,  p.  645,  1885. 
12  177 


1/8  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

rolls  on — but  not  the  least  potent  has  been,  no  doubt, 
the  antagonism  that  by  many  was  imagined  to  exist 
between  the  teachings  of  scriptural  chronology  and  the 
findings  of  modern  science.  For  this  reason,  therefore, 
the  question  of  the  age  of  the  human  race  is  one  that 
must  interest  the  biblical  as  well  as  the  scientific  stu- 
dent, and  in  consequence  our  modern  scriptural  exe- 
getists  have  given  to  the  subject  almost  as  much 
thought  and  study  as  have  the  most  zealous  votaries 
of  science.  The  topic  is  certainly  a  fascinating  one, 
and  we  need  not  be  surprised  that  so  many  investi- 
gators have  spent  so  much  time  in  attempts  at  its 
elucidation. 

Like  all  scientific  subjects  which  are  tinged  with  a 
human  and  a  religious  interest,  it  has  a  charm  that  no 
subject  of  pure  science  can  ever  possess.  And  until  all 
difficulties  bearing  on  the  question  are  cleared  up,  until 
all  doubts  arising  from  the  supposed  conflict  of  science 
with  scriptural  chronology  are  dissipated,  and  until  it 
shall  be  demonstrated  that  there  is  and  can  be  no  dif- 
ference of  teaching  by  science  on  the  one  hand  and 
Scripture  on  the  other  regarding  the  time  man  has 
existed  on  earth,  so  long  will  the  question  of  the 
antiquity  of  our  race  continue  to  have,  for  many  inves- 
tigators at  least,  the  paramount  attraction  that  is  now 
so  notable. 

Fully  to  appreciate  the  reason  of  the  great  interest 
which  attaches  to  the  study  of  questions  like  the  one 
under  discussion,  and  to  understand  the  cause  of  the 
wide  divergence  of  views  of  a  certain  class  of  scientists 
on  the  one  hand,  and  of  orthodox  scriptural  inter- 
preters on  the  other,  regarding  many  passages  in  the 
Bible,  especially  in  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  necessary  to 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN    RACE.  179 

take  cognizance  of  the  inflnences  which  have  con- 
tributed to  the  development  of  that  pronounced  form 
of  Rationalism  which  is  such  a  striking  and  dominant 
characteristic  of  our  age. 

Rationalism  and  Deism. 

In  every  age  of  the  Church,  Rationalism  has  been 
more  or  less  prevalent.  In  the  first  centuries  of  its 
existence  it  was  championed  by  Celsus,  Porphyry, 
Hierocles,  and  Julian  the  Apostate.  In  mediaeval 
times  Averroes  and  his  followers  were  its  chief  cory- 
phei.  At  the  present  time — and  during  the  past  hun- 
dred years,  for  that  matter — the  great  stronghold  of 
Rationalism  is  in  Germany.  But  it  would  be  scarcely 
true  to  say  that  the  Rationalism  now  so  rampant  is 
an  indigenous  growth  among  the  Germans.  Luther  did, 
indeed,  sow  the  germs  of  free  thought  when  he  pro- 
claimed his  principle  of  private  interpretation  of  the 
Bible,  but  neither  he  nor  his  countrymen  seemed  to 
realize  the  consequences  to  which  this  principle  would 
logically  and  inevitably  lead.  It  is  more  consonant 
with  the  facts  of  history  to  regard  German  Rational- 
ism as  an  exotic,  greatly  developed  and  transformed, 
it  is  tTue,  by  reason  of  congenial  soil  and  favorable 
environment,  but  nevertheless  an  exotic,  transplanted 
from  lands  where  the  genius  and  temperament  of  the 
people,  although  in  some  respects  similar  to,  are  yet 
in  others  entirely  different  from,  those  of  the  Teutonic 
race. 

The  first  to  perceive  the  full  significance  of  the  prin- 
ciples laid  down  by  the  heresiarchs  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  and  the  first  to  draw  conclusions  in  accordance 


l8o  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

with  the  premises  involved,  were  the  Deists  of  England. 
Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury  is  usually  regarded  as  the 
father  of  English  Deism.  In  his  work  on  truth  and 
revelation/  published  in  1624,  ^^  rejects  revelation  as 
useless  aud  reduces  Deism  to  a  system.  He  soon  had 
a  large  number  of  followers,  and  among  them  some 
of  the  keenest  intellects  and  most  famous  wits  of  the 
time. 

The  noted  Materialist,  Hobbes,  although  differing 
from  Herbert  in  philosophy,  shared  many  of  his  views 
on  religion  and  morals.  Among  later  Deists  who  con- 
tributed much  toward  sowing  the  seeds  of  doubt  and 
free  thought  and  sapping  the  foundations  of  religion 
in  Great  Britain  were  Shaftesbury,  Blount,  Toland, 
Collins,  Tindal,  Morgan,  Woolston,  Chubb,  Whiston, 
\  Somers,  Shrewsbury,  Buckingham,  and  Bolingbroke. 

Toland  regarded  Christianity  as  a  superstition,  and 
had  no  respect  either  for  revealed  truth  or  the  prin- 
ciples of  natural  morality.  Tindal  followed  in  the 
wake  of  Lord  Herbert,  and  with  Morgan  united  in 
considering  the  religion  of  Christ  but  a  forerunner 
of  natural  religion.  To  Woolston  the  miracles  of  the 
Gospel  were  mere  allegories.  He,  accordingly,  with 
Chubb,  Whiston,  Shaftesbury,  and,  above  all,  with 
Hume,  made  his  onslaughts  on  these  evidences  of  re- 
vealed truth.  Collins  and  Craig  directed  their  shafts 
against  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  All 
combined  to  assail  the  authority  of  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  consequence  was  that  many  whose  faith 
was  wavering  soon  found  themselves  deprived  of  the 
little  they  still  possessed. 

'  De  Veritate  pront  Distingnitur  a  Revelatione,  a  Verisimili, 
a  Possibili,  et  a  Falso. 


THE  AGE  OF  THE   HUMAN   RACE.  i8l 

Natural  Religion  and  Rationalism  were  the  first  fruits 
of  these  persistent  attacks  on  the  Bible.  But  the  work 
of  religious  disintegration  was  not  to  be  confined  to 
England.  It  was  soon  to  affect  France,  and  then  Ger- 
many and  other  parts  of  Europe.  During  his  enforced 
sojourn  in  England,  Voltaire  had  found  congenial  asso- 
ciates among  the  leading  Deists  and  free-thinkers  of 
the  day,  and  was  not  slow  to  imbibe  their  principles. 
As  may  easily  be  imagined,  he  was  an  apt  pupil. 
y/^  Of  all  the  English  Deists,  Bolingbroke  seems  to 
have  exerted  the  greatest  influence  on  the  "  Sage  of 
Ferney,"  and  to  have  supplied  him  with  much  of  the 
material  with  which  he  afterward  so  violently  assailed 
both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament.  But  it  was  not 
argument  that  Voltaire  employed  in  his  assaults  on 
Christianity,  which  at  one  time  he  egotistically  fancied 
he  could  destroy,  but  refined  derision  and  irony.  A 
peerless  master  of  epigram  and  endowed  with  a  keen, 
penetrating  understanding,  he  made  the  Bible  and  the 
Church  the  butt  of  his  brilliant,  flashing  wit  and  of 
his  caustic  and  withering  ridicule.  Understanding 
thoroughly,  as  he  did,  the  temperament  of  his  coun- 
trymen, Voltaire  was  fully  aware  of  the  power  of  the 
weapons  he  employed.  Nothing,  he  knew,  would 
affect  a  Frenchman  sooner  than  sarcasm  or  a  well- 
turned  epigram,  and  accordingly,  during  his  long  and 
eventful  warfare  against  Christianity,  he  never  de- 
viated from  the  plan  of  campaign  which  he  first 
adopted.  To  say  that  he  was  not  in  a  measure  suc- 
cessful in  his  nefarious  purposes  would  be  to  contro- 
vert history.  The  evil  that  he  accomplished  can  never 
be  estimated. 

As  Herbert  was  the  father  of  Deism  in  England,  so 


1 82  BIBLE,   SCIENXE,  AND   FAITH. 

was  Voltaire  the  father  of  infidelity  in  France.  But 
he  was  not  alone  in  his  attack  on  the  Church  and  all 
that  the  French  people  until  his  time  had  revered  as 
sacred.  He  was  aided  and  abetted  by  a  number  of 
kindred  spirits,  like  Diderot,  Rousseau,  Helvetius, 
Condillac,  and  others,  who  by  their  writings  gener- 
ally, but  above  all  by  that  monument  of  falsehood 
and  impiety,  the  French  Encydopedie^  made  infidel- 
ity fashionable  and  paved  the  way  for  the  Reign  of 
Terror. 

From  France  the  tidal-w^ave  of  free  thought  soon 
passed  on  to  Germany,  where  it  issued  in  forms  of 
Rationalism  and  Materialism,  Atheism  and  Nihiljsm, 
before  which  the  world  stood  appalled. 

The  work  of  destruction  was  inaugurated  by  Sam- 
uel Reimarus,  a  professor  of  philosophy  in  Hamburg, 
He  died  in  1768,  leaving  a  collection  of  manuscripts 
'from  which  Lessing  subsequently  published  numerous 
extracts  under  the  title  of  Wolfenbiittelsche  Fragjneiite 
eines  Ungenannten.  Reimarus' s  production  was  a 
direct  attack  on  the  historical  basis  of  Christianity, 
and  opened  the  flood-gates  for  the  deluge  of  Ration- 
alism whicli  has  since  extended  its  ravages  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Elbe  to  the  Mediterranean  and  from 
the  Ural  IMouutains  to  the  Irish  Sea. 

Prior  to  the  time  of  Reimarus  there  had  been  ex- 
hibited in  certain  quarters  a  disposition  to  question 
the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  but  the  public  was 
not  yet  prepared  for  the  revolutionary  teachings  of 
Reimarus  and  Lessing.  The  illustrious  Dutch  jurist, 
Hugo  Grotius,  and  the  pantheistic  Jew,  Spinoza,  had 
called  in  doubt  some  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
theologians  respecting  biblical  interpretation  and  criti- 


THE  AGE  OF  THE  HUMAN   RACE.  183 

cism  ;  but  their  doctrines  lay  practically  dormant 
until  the  eighteenth  century,  when  their  influence 
began  to  be  felt  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
Kurope — an  influence  which  has  continued  unabated 
in  power  and  extent  until  the  present  day. 

Luther  repudiated  tradition;  Lessing,  who  has  been 
called  the  Luther  of  the  eighteenth  century,  repudiated 
the  Bible  as  a  divinely-inspired  work.  Thenceforward, 
scriptural  commentators  seemed  to  vie  with  one  another 
as  to  who  could  carry  farthest  the  work  of  disintegra- 
tion and  demolition.  Every  book,  every  chapter,  every 
verse,  every  word  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  was 
submitted  to  the  microscope  of  the  "Higher  Criti- 
cism." Every  statement  of  Scripture  was  compared 
with  the  teachings  of  profane  science,  and  declared 
true  or  false  according  as  it  agreed  or  disagreed  with 
the  latest  pronunciamentos  of  scientific  thought. 

The  progress  of  Rationalism  in  Germany  much  re- 
sembled the  advanoe  of  Deism  in  England.  Good  and 
pious  men,  in  their  frantic  endeavors  to  save  something 
of  supernatural  religion  from  utter  shipwreck,  threw 
everything  overboard  until  they  found  they  had  left 
nothing  but  Natural  Religion,  which  is  but  little  more 
than  Rationalism  pure  and  simple.  Such  was  the  fate 
of  Locke  in  his  attempted  answer  to  Lord  Herbert,  and 
such,  too,  was  the  fate  of  Semler,  Henke,  and  Ernesti 
in  their  futile  attempts  to  stay  the  torrent  let  loose  by 
Lessing  and  Reimarus,  They  dissociated  religion 
from  theology,  and  fancied  they  could  save  Chris- 
tianity by  rendering  it  independent  of  Scripture. 

The  denial  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  was  the 
first  step  toward  the  denial  of  Christianity.  The 
second  step  was  the  denial  of  miracles,  and  this  was 


1 84  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND    FAITH. 

made  by  Eichhorn  and  Pauliis.'  The  latter  was  deeply 
imbued  with  the  ideas  of  Kant,  who,  accordinsf  to 
Lecky,  was,  with  Lessing,  the  chief  leader  in  Ger- 
V  many  in  the  war  against  the  Bible. ^  The  third  and 
last  step  consisted  in  denying  the  authenticity  of  the 
Sacred  Books,  and  this  radical  movement  was  made  by 

— —  the  notorious  David  Friedrich  Strauss.  Under  the 
pompous  name  of  biblical  criticism  or  critical  theology 
he  brushed  aside  all  that  his  predecessors  had  left  of 
the  Sacred  Text,  and  made  the  negation  of  the  super- 
natural one  of  his  fundamental  tenets.  What  for  so 
many  ages  had  been  regarded  as  undoubted  facts  and 
truthful  narratives  were  pronounced  by  the  author  of 

""■^     the  Lebeii  Jesu  myths  and  mythical  legends.' 

I  have  briefly  traced  Rationalism  through  its  full 
course  and  found  it  to  issue  in  Atheism  and  Nihilism. 
The  doubts  of  Lessing  and  the  skepticism  of  Kant  led 
to  the  negations  of  Strauss,  and  the  Pantheism  of 
Hegel  to  the  Atheism  of  Feuerbach  and  Schopenhauer. 
According  to  these  representatives  of  the  most  ad- 
vanced German  thought,  the  value  and  truth  of  dogma 
are  to  be  estimated  by  its  conformity  with  the  latest 
results  of  scientific  research.  The  principal  dogmas 
/of  the  Christian  faith  are  belief  in  a  personal  God,  the 
creation  of  the  universe  out  of  nothing,  and  the  im- 

V    mortality  of  the  soul.     But  these  beliefs  are  not   in 

'  "Melanges  bibliques,"  Les  Inventeurs  de  V Explication 
naturelle  des  Miracles,  par  F.  Vigoiiroux. 

^  History  of  the  Rise  and  Influence  of  Rationalism  i?i  Europe, 
vol.  i.  p.  189,  et  seq. 

'  Cf.  Einleitung  of  Leben  Jesu  ;  also.  Introduction  of  I'te  de 
Jesus,  by  Ernest  Renan.  See  likewise  Rawlinson's  Historical 
Evidences  of  the  Truth  oj  the  Scriptures. 


THE   AGE   OF  THE   HUMAN   RACE.         "  185 

accordance  with  the  teachings  of  science,  and  are 
therefore  false.'  Astronomy  has  driven  God  from 
heaven;  reason  has  deprived  Him  of  His  conrt  and 
taken  from  Him  His  angels  and  His  saints.  Geology 
and  palaeontology  have  demonstrated  the  falsity  of  the 
Mosaic  cosmogony;  linguistic  and  prehistoric  archae- 
ology have  shown  the  futility  of  biblical  chronology; 
and  historical  criticism  has  proved  that  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  are  nothing  more  than  a  tissue  of 
myths  and  fables.  Religion  is  a  bugbear  invented  by 
a  wily  priestcraft;  morality  is  a  name  for  something 
that  does  not  exist;  law  and  order,  restrictions  on  per- 
sonal liberty  which  should  not  be  tolerated. 

Such  is  the  last  word  of  modern  Rationalism,  such 
the  latest  utterances  of  that  science  that  has  arrayed 
itself  against  the  Bible  and  against  all  forms  of  super- 
natural religion. 

Certain  Modern  Tendencies. 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  understand — -what  would 
otherwise  appear  difficult  if  not  unintelligible — the 
attitude  assumed  by  so  many  scientific  men  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  all  questions  that  have  even  a  remote  bear- 
ing on  the  inspiration  and  the  authenticity  of  the 
Scriptures  and  on  the  evidences  of  revealed  religion. 
They  affect  to  have  persuaded  themselves,  and  they  try 
to  convince  others,  that  the  Bible  is  false,  that  Chris- 
tianity is  a  concatenation  of  falsehoods,  and  that  it  is 
the  mission  of  science  and  of  men  of  science  to  pro- 
claim to  the  world  the  irreconcilable  antagonism  be- 
tween revelation  and  science,  between  the  teachings 
of  religion  and  the  latest  conclusions  of  modern 
thouofht. 


1 86  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

It  must  not,  however,  be  inferred  from  the  foregoing 
that  there  is  any  real  antagonism  between  true  science 
and  religious  dogma.     Not  only  is  this  far  from  being 
the  case,  whatever  modern  Rationalists  may  declare  to 
the   contrary,    but,    what   is   more,    it   is   impossible. 
There   are,    indeed,    discrepancies    and    antagonisms 
between  the  protean  theories  of  science  and  the  teach- 
ings of  faith,  but  this,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
^\is  inevitable.     The  doctrines  of  the  Church  are  the 
'  expression  of  Truth  itself,  and  therefore  immutable. 
,  »  The  hypotheses   and  the   speculations  which  certain 
-,  scientists  set  such   store  by  are  as  changeable  as  the 
colors  of  the  chameleon  and  as  short-lived  as  the  May- 
fly.    Such  theories,   so  often    foisted  on  a  credulous 
world  in  the  name  of  science,  are  truly  characterized 
in  the  words  of  the  poet  who  speaks  of 

"  Ephemeral  monsters,  to  be  seen  but  once — 
Things  that  could  onl}^  show  themselves  and  die." 

What  I  wish  specially  to  direct  attention  to  is  the 
tendency  of  modern  science  to  inculcate  Utilitarian- 
ism in  morals,  Materialism  in  philosophy,  and  Ration- 
\^   alism  and  skepticism  in  religion.     True  science  and 

i  true  scientists  keep  aloof  from  this  tendency,  but 
there  are  many  students  of   nature  who  are  uncon- 

I  sciously  affected  by  it,  even  when  they  are  absolutely 
free  from  any  preconceived  notions  in  their  special 
lines  of  research.  They  live  in  an  atmosphere  of 
doubt,  and  are  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  criticism 
and  Agnosticism  which  is  everywhere  rampant.  Con- 
trary to  their  own  principles,  and  in  spite  of  them- 
selves, they  are  forced  into  the  current  of  Rational- 


THE   AGE  OF  THE   HUMAN   RACE.  187 

ism,  and  ere  they  realize  it  they  are  engulfed  in  the 
maelstrom  of  Materialism  or  Pantheism. 

For,  strange  as  it  may  appear,  and  inconsistent  as 
it  really  is,  men  of  science,  who  are  so  restive  under 
authority,  spiritual  or  religious,  and  who  are  wont  to 
boast  of  perfect  intellectual  freedom,  are  often  the 
greatest  slaves  to  those  who  for  the  nonce  are  salut- 
ed as  tlie  hierophants  of  "  advanced  thought."  The 
influence  which  Hackel,  Karl  Vogt,  Biichner,  Oscar 
Schmidt,  Paul  Bert,  Darwin,  Huxley,  Romanes,  Spen- 
cer, and  others  of  their  ilk  have  over  their  followers, 
even  in  matters  disconnected  with  the  sciences  which 
they  profess,  is  evidence,  if  any  were  required,  of  the 
truth  of  this  statement. 

Contrary  to  what  they  assert,  modern  scientists  are 
often  more  guided  in  their  investigations  by  the  magis- 
ter  dixit  of  some  wild  theorist  than  they  are  by  the 
facts  of  science  and  the  indications  of  nature.  This 
will  explain  the  variations  and  contradictions  which 
are  so  often  palmed  off  on  the  public  as  veritable  sci- 
ence, and  account  for  the  vagaries  and  absurdities  that 
frequently  constitute  such  a  striking  characteristic  of 
some  of  our  "advanced  thinkers."  What  on  one  day 
obtains  universal  acquiescence  sinks  on  the  next  to 
complete  rejection.  For  men  of  science,  at  least  the 
majority  of  them,  have  yet  to  learn  that  when  they 
leave  the  domain  of  nature,  where  their  researches 
should  keep  them,  and  enter  into  the  region  of  specu- 
lation, they  are,  Icarus-like,  courting  certain  failure 
if  not  utter  destruction.  Their  experience  is  sure  to 
be  like  that  of  the  Rationalistic  school  in  questions 
of  Scripture  and  religion — the  verification  of  the  old 
saying,  quot  homines  tot  setiteutics. 


1 88  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

After  this  rather  long  preamble,  we  are  now  pre- 
pared to  discuss  the  historical  and  the  physico-scrip- 
tural  question  of  the  antiquity  of  the  human  species, 
and  to  appreciate  many  of  the  aspects  of  the  contro- 
versy which  would  otherwise  be  ill  understood.  It 
will  be  found  that  the  variations  in  the  history  of 
heresies  so  graphically  described  by  Bossuet  are  fully 
paralleled  b>'  the  various  phases  assumed  by  the  pro- 
tracted and  heated  debate  between  biblical  scholars 
and  scientists  regarding  the  character  of  scriptural 
chronology,  especially  in  its  bearing  on  the  always 
fascinating  question  of  the  age  of  our  race. 

The  first  serious  onslaught  by  men  of  science  on 
the  biblical  chronology  in  its  relation  to  the  antiquity 
of  man  was  inaugurated  in  the  latter  part  of  the  last 
century.  The  atmosphere  was  then  impregnated 
with  the  poison  of  free  thought  and  irreligion,  and 
the  minds  of  many,  even  good  men,  were  in  a  condi- 
tion of  doubt  and  anxiety  bordering  almost  on  despair. 
It  was  a  period  of  intellectual  as  well  as  of  political 
revolution  and  anarchy,  when  the  worst  elements  of 
society  were  in  the  ascendency  and  were  bent  on  de- 
stroying thrones  and  altars  and  removing  the  last 
vestiges  of  the  ancient  regime.  Bayle,  Voltaire, 
Rousseau,  Condillac,  Diderot,  Helvetius,  D'Alembert 
had  done  their  work.  The  "Encyclopaedists,"  so  it 
seemed,  had  conquered.  Rationalism  and  infidelity 
had  triumphed.  A  new  era  was  to  be  ushered  in, 
and  all  traces  of  the  past,  in  so  far  as  the  Church 
and  religion  were  concerned,  were  to  be  consigned 
to  oblivion. 


the  age  of  the  human  race.  189 

Astronomical  Discussions. 

The  attack  was  made  in  the  name  of  astronomy, 
and  was  led  by  some  of  the  ablest  minds  of  the  age. 
A  careful  examination  of  the  astronomical  tables  of 
the  Hindus,  it  was  averred,  proved  conclusively  that 
the  Indian  astronomers  had  made  observations  on  the 
heavenly  bodies  full  three  thousand  years  before  our 
era,  and  had  cultivated  the  science  of  the  stars  twelve 
hundred  years  earlier  than  their  first  recorded  obser- 
vations. In  other  words,  it  was  contended  that  the 
Hindus  had  studied  astronomy  at  least  four  thousand 
two  hundred  years  before  the  Christian  era — that,  con- 
sequently, these  people  had  an  antiquity  far  in  excess  of 
that  assignable  by  the  usually  accepted  scriptural  chro- 
nology. Professor  Playfair,  the  distinguished  Scotch 
mathematician,  in  referring  to  these  tables,  discloses 
the  animus  which  actuated  himself  aiid  his  confreres 
by  the  statement:  "It  is  through  the  medium  of 
astronomy  alone  that  a  few  rays  from  those  distant 
objects"  (the  primitive  inhabitants  of  India)  "can  be 
conveyed  in  safety  to  the  eye  of  the  modern  observer, 
so  as  to  afford  him  a  light  which,  though  scanty,  is 
pure  and  unbroken  and  free  from  the  false  coloring 
of  vanity  and  superstition." 

It  was  not  long,  however,  before  it  was  demon- 
strated by  some  of  the  more  prominent  members  of 
the  Asiatic  Society,  notably  by  Mr.  Bently  of  Calcutta, 
and  by  the  celebrated  French  astronomer,  Delambre, 
that  the  calculations  of  Playfair,  Bailly,  and  their 
associates  were  based  on  a  myth.  It  was  shown,  be- 
yond question,  that  the  earliest  reliable  astronomical 
observations  of  the  Hindus,  as  given  in  their  sacred 


190  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

books,  do  not  date  back  farther  than  142 1  b.  c,  and 
that  their  oldest  extant  treatise  on  astronomy  belongs 
to  a  period  not  earlier  than  570  A.  d. 

Shortly  after  the  excitement  consequent  on  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  Hindu  astronomical  tables  had  subsided 
a  still  greater  sensation  was  produced  by  the  finding, 
by  some  of  the  French  savants  who  accompanied 
'Napoleon  to  Egypt,  of  the  now  famous  zodiacs  of 
Denderah  and  Esneh.  According  to  the  calculations 
of  certain  astronomers  and  mathematicians,  these 
zodiacs,  as  well  as  the  temples  in  which  they  were 
found,  had  an  antiquity  utterly  irreconcilable  with 
any  system  of  chronology  that  could  be  deduced  from 
the  facts  and  the  genealogies  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  zodiac  of  Esneh,  M.  Nouet  calculated,  dated  as 
far  back  as  4600  b.  c,  whilst  M.  Burckhardt's  compu- 
tations assigned  it  to  a  period  about  seven  thousand 
years  before  our  era.  According  to  a  writer  in  the 
Edinburgh  Revieiv^  the  zodiacs  of  Denderah  could 
not  "be  referred  to  a  period  much  later  than  three 
thousand  eight  hundred  years  ago,"  whereas  that  of 
Esneh  was  given  an  antiquity  of  "more  than  five 
thousand  three  hundred  years."  M.  Dupuis  went 
much  farther,  and  estimated  that  the  temples  in 
which  the  zodiacs  were  discovered  must  have  a  min- 
imum age  of  fifteen  thousand  years.  "I  have,"  he 
exclaimed  with  self-complacency,  "cast  the  anchor  of 
truth  into  the  ocean  of  time."  But,  as  the  sequel 
showed,  he  was  mistaken;  his  ocean  of  time  proved 
to  be  an  ocean  of  error. 

"It  was  then,"  remarks  a  sagacious  writer,  com- 
menting on  the  zodiacs  and  the  speculations  to  which 
they  gave  rise,  "that  science  struck  out  into  very  bold 


/ 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  191 

systems,  and  the  spirit  of  infidelity,  seizing  upon  the 
discovery,  flattered  itself  with  the  hope  of  drawing 
from  it  new  support. "  The  enemies  of  religion  and 
the  Bible  again  raised  a  cry  of  victory,  and  gravely 
announced  that  the  Christian  chronology  was  a  thing 
of  the  past. 

But  the  shout  of  triumph,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Hindu  tables,  was  premature,  for  just  when  the  infidels 
of  France  and  England  were  rapturously  singing  their 
pseans  of  congratulation  a  young  man — a  scholar  and 
an  explorer — arrived  from  Egypt,  bringing  with  him 
incontestable  evidence  that  the  calculations  which 
assigned  such  great  antiquity  to  the  temples  and 
zodiacs  of  Denderah  and  Esneh  were  entirely  illusory 
and  were  utterly  without  foundation  in  fact.  The 
young  man's  name  was  Jean  Frangois  Champollion, 
the  father  of  Egyptology,  whose  genius  had  unrav- 
elled the  mysteries  of  the  hieroglyphics  that  before 
his  time  disclosed  as  little  regarding  the  past  history 
of  Nile-land,  its  monuuients  and  its  inhabitants,  as 
the  Sphinx  itself.  He  had  studied  the  zodiacs  in  situ^ 
and  was  able  to  demonstrate  to  the  satisfaction  of 
even  the  most  critical  that,  far  from  having  the  hoary 
antiquity  claimed  for  them,  they  did  not  antedate  the 
first  two  centuries.  They  did  not  belong  to  the  times 
of  some  of  the  earlier  Pharaohs,  as  many  stoutly 
maintained,  but  were  put  in  place  during  the  Roman 
domination  in  Egypt,  and  some  time  during  or  be- 
tween the  reigns  of  Tiberius  and  x\ntoninus  Pius. 

The  warfare  waged  in  the  name  of  astronomy  against 
the  biblical  chronology  was  a  signal  failure.  But, 
nothing  daunted,  the  enemies  of  the  Church  betook 
themselves  to  a  new  arsenal,  from  which  they  fondly 


192  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

hoped  to  draw  more  effective  arms.  These  arsenals 
were  the  histories  and  literatures  of  certain  of  the 
Oriental  nations,  especially  India,  China,  Egypt,  and 
Assyria. 

Hindu  Chronology. 

Hindu  literature  and  history,  whose  vast  treasures 
had  just  been  opened  up  to  European  scholars,  seemed 
to  promise  them  all  they  could  desire.  Herein,  it  was 
claimed,  existed  incontestable  evidence  of  a  civilization 
older  than  that  of  Greece  and  richer  than  that  of 
Egypt — the  fountain-head,  it  was  averred,  of  all  other 
civilizations  whatsoever.  The  poems,  mythologies, 
and  the  genealogical  lists  of  kings  as  given  in  the 
Vedas,  Puranas,  and  Sutras  were  carefully  scrutinized 
and  compared;  but  the  results  arrived  at,  when  above 
mere  conjecture,  were  far  from  reliable,  or  satisfactory 
to  those  who  were  in  quest  of  weapons  which  they 
could  use  against  the  Christian  cause. 

Sir  William  Jones,  the  great  Orientalist,  and  cer- 
tainly no  friend  of  the  Church,  was  the  first  to  make 
a  serious  attempt  to  unravel  the  intricate  web  of  Indian 
chronology.  In  his  examination  of  Sanskrit  records 
he  met  with  absurdities  and  contradictions  innumerable, 
but  still,  far  from  despairing,  he  pursued  his  inquiries 
with  a  persistence  and  an  enthusiasm  that  must  extort 
admiration  even  from  his  bitterest  adversary. 

And  what  was  the  result  of  his  investigations  ?  One 
that  was  a  grievous  disappointment  to  the  anti-Chris- 
tian theorizers  of  his  time,  but  one  that  was  quite  in 
consonance  with  the  chronology  of  the  Bible.  Ac- 
cepting as  legitimate  the  conclusions  of  a  prejudiced 
investigator,  but  one  who  was  remarkably  w^ell  qual- 


THE   AGE   OP^   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  193 

ified  to  give  an  opinion  on  the  question  under  dis- 
cussion, "  we  have  the  establishment  of  a  government 
in  that  country  [India]  no  earlier  than  two  thousand 
years  before  Christ,  the  age  of  Abraham,  when  the 
book  of  Genesis  represents  Egypt  as  possessing  an 
established  dynasty,  and  commerce  and  literature 
already  flourishing  in  Phoenicia."  ' 

Wilfort,  Klaproth,  Heeren,  and  others  continued 
the  work  inaugurated  by  Sir  William  Jones,  and  with 
essentially  the  same  results.  Heeren,  after  making  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  Hindu  writings,  gives 
it  as  his  opinion  that  "we  cannot  expect  to  find  in 
them  any  critical  or  chronological  history;  it  is  one  by 
poets  composed  and  by  poets  preserved."  And  so  com- 
pletely are  the  early  annals  of  India  involved  in  myth- 
ological fable  that  Klaproth  does  not  hesitate  to  bring 
down  the  commencement  of  true  clironological  history 
to  a  period  as  late  as  the  twelfth  century  of  our  era. 

The  erudite  Lassen,  as  the  fruit  of  most  laborious 
and  extended  researches  in  Indian  history  and  litera- 
ture, arrives  at  conclusions  which  admirably  harmo- 
nize with  those  of  his  predecessors  whom  we  have  just 
named.  He  places  the  date  of  the  establishment  of 
regular  government  in  India  somewhere  between  2000 
and  1500  B.  c. — a  date  quite  in  keeping  with  even  the 
most  conservative  system  of  scriptural  chronology. 

According  to  some  of  the  most  recent  authorities  on 
the  subject — Kruse  and  Littre,  for  instance — none  of 
the  Hindu  records  deserve  the  name  of  history.  They 
are  enveloped  in  a  poetical  mantle  of  myth  that  utterly 
precludes  any  determination  of  time  or  the  establish- 

'  Cardinal  Wiseman's  Science  a?id  Revealed  Religion,  vol.  ii. 

13 


194  BIBLE,    SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

ment  of  any  date  which  could  serve  as  a  certain  basis 
of  a  system  of  chronology  that  would  be  even  approx- 
imately correct. 

According  to  Max  Miiller,  the  oldest  of  the  Vedas, 
which  are  the  most  ancient  monuments  of  Sanskrit 
literature,  belong  to  a  period  not  anterior  to  twelve  or 
fifteen  hundred  years  before  the  Christian  era.  For  a 
long  time  the  Laws  of  IManu — the  Manavadharma- 
sastra — were,  like  the  Vedic  hymns,  supposed  to  have 
a  venerable  antiquity.  Sir  William  Jones  fixed  their 
date  at  1280,  and  Elphinstone  at  900,  b.  c.  The  learned 
Oxford  philologist,  in  referring  to  them,  says:  "  I  doubt 
whether,  in  their  present  form,  they  can  be  older  than 
the  fourth  century  of  our  era;  nay,  I  am  prepared  to 
see  an  even  later  date  assigned  to  them.  I  know  this 
will  be  heresy  to  many  Sanskrit  scholars,  but  we  must 
try  to  be  honest  to  ourselves."  '  • 

Elsewhere  the  same  distinguished  authority  observ^es: 
"  I  ascribe  the  collection  and  systematic  arrangement 
of  the  Vedic  hymns  and  formulas,  which  we  find  in 
four  books,  or  the  Samhiias^  for  the  Rig-zeda^  the 
Yagtir-veda^  the  Sama-veda^  and  the  Athrmva-veda^ 
to  the  Mantra  period,  from  the  year  800  b.  c.  to  the 
year  1000."'  Referring  to  the  antiquity  of  the  Rig- 
veda,  he  affirms:  "  One  thing  is  certain:  there  is  noth- 
ing more  ancient  and  primitive,  not  only  in  India,  but 
in  the  whole  Aryan  world,  than  the  hymns  of  the 
Rig-veda. ' ' 

In  a  recent  exhaustive  and  scholarly  work,  Brah- 
manism  and  its  Relations^'  Mgr.  Laouenan,  vicar-apos- 

'  India  :    What  it  Can  Teach  Us,  lecture  iii. 

■•'  Lectures  on  the  Origin  atid  Grozfth  of  Religion,  p.  145. 

*  This  remarkable  work— /?«  Brahmanisme  et  ses  Rapports 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN    RACE.  195 

tolic  of  Pondicherry,  India,  reiterates  what  has  been 
so  often  remarked  by  others.  "  The  special  character- 
istics," he  observes  in  the  introduction  to  his  book, 
''of  all  Indian  literature  is  that  it  has  almost  abso- 
lutely no  chronology;  so  all  who  have  written  on 
ancient  India  up  to  the  Mohammedan  invasion  in  the 
eleventh  century  are  reduced  to  conjectures  more  or 
less  risky."  "India,"  he  continues,  "  has  no  histor\-, 
or  rather  it  possesses  no  chronology;  historical  facts 
abound,  but  they  have  no  dates,  so  that  it  is  b)-  con- 
fronting them  with  events  in  the  history  of  other 
peoples  who  had  relations  with  it  that  it  is  possible  to 
determine  in  an  approximate  manner  the  time  when 
the  persons  existed  or  the  events  took  place."  ' 

The  utter  impossibility  of  constructing  anything 
like  the  chronological  history  of  India  from  the  ma- 
terials supplied  has  been  fully  acknowledged  by  one 
who  was  singularly  well  qualified  to  express  an  opinion 
on  the  question.  I  refer  to  the  distinguished  scholar 
and  Orientalist,  M.  Barthelemy  Saint-Hilaire.  Writing 
in  t\iQ  Journal des  Savants'^  in  reference  to  the  subject 
we  are  now  considering,  he  declares  that  everywhere 
in  the  world  of  India,  except  in  Ceylon,  "history  is 

avec  le  Judaisme  ct  le  Chiistianisjne — was  the  fruit  of  thirty- 
five  years  of  research  under  exceptionally  favorable  cir- 
cumstances. It  was  specially  approved — couro^aic — by  the 
French  Academy,  and  may  be  regarded  as  the  ablest  and 
most  reliable  exposition  of  the  subject  which  has  yet  ap- 
peared. 

^  For  a  thoughtful  discussion  of  this  topic,  as  well  as  for  an 
interesting  notice  of  Mgr.  Laouenan's  book,  see  an  article  in  the 
Catholic  World,  vol.  Iviii.  No.  347,  by  the  accomplished  bishop 
of  Vincennes,  the  Right  Rev.  Francis  Silas  Chatard,  D.  D. 

^  March,  1866,  pp.  164,  165. 


196  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

entirely  absent,  or,  if  it  tries  to  show  itself,  it  is  so  dis- 
figured that  it  is  absolutely  unrecognizable.  Who  in 
the  legends  of  the  epic  poems,  the  Brahmanas,  the 
Pufanas  is  able  to  discover  an  historical  tradition  ? 
Is  it  possible,  even  according  to  the  most  liberal  sys- 
tem of  interpretation,  to  extract  therefrom  anything 
precise,  anything  real  ?  The  most  important  events 
of  Brahmanic  society  are  obscured  by  an  impenetrable 
darkness  which  time  intensifies  instead  of  diminishing. 
In  spite  of  all  our  erudition,  so  powerful  and  so  sure, 
we  must  despair  of  resuscitating  that  past  which  was 
annihilated  by  the  very  ones  who  were  its  chief  actors. 
India  has  not  willed  to  awake  from  her  dreams;  we 
cannot  historically  call  her  from  her  tomb." 

A  careful  study,  therefore,  of  the  astronomy,  the  lit- 
erature, and  what  there  is  of  the  history  of  the  Hin- 
dus leads  us  to  the  same  conclusion  at  which  the 
learned  Cardinal  Wiseman  arrived  more  than  half  a 
century  ago.  In  his  admirable  lectures  on  Tlic  Con- 
nection betzveen  Science  and  Revealed  Religion  — 
which,  notwithstanding  the  remarkable  strides  science 
has  made  since  1835,  when  the  lectures  were  delivered, 
is  still,  in  many  respects,  a  standard  work  on  the  topics 
treated — this  scholarly  prince  of  the  Church  summa- 
rizes in  one  sentence  all  that  may  be  said  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  antiquity  of  the  Hindus  when  he  says: 
"Instead  of  the  six  thousand  years  before  Alexander 
attributed  by  some  writers  on  the  credit  of  Arrian,  or 
the  millions  deduced  from  the  fables  of  the  Brahmans, 
we  have,  as  Jones  and  others  have  conjectured,  the  age 
of  Abraham  as  the  earliest  historical  epoch  of  an  organ- 
ized community  in  India."  ^ 

*  Op.  cit.,  vol.  ii.  p.  2)1. 


the  age  of  the  human  race.  197 

Antiquity  of  the  Chinese. 

The  boasted  antiquity  of  the  Chinese  fares  no  better 
in  the  hands  of  modern  historical  criticism.  As  in  the 
case  of  the  Hindus,  national  pride  and  ambition  im- 
pelled the  Chinese  to  claim  an  extravagant  remoteness 
of  time  for  their  origin  and  for  the  beginnings  of  their 
history.  It  is  the  boast  of  the  Chinese  that  theirs  is 
the  oldest  nation  on  the  globe,  and,  if  we  are  to  credit 
their  annalists,  the  history  of  the  Celestial  Empire 
stretches  back  to  the  venerable  antiquity  of  three 
million  two  hundred  and  seventy-six  thousand  years 
before  the  Christian  era.  Like  the  Hindus,  the  Chi- 
nese tell  us  that  in  the  earliest  times  their  country  was 
governed  by  celestial  rulers  or  demigods,  and  their  his- 
torians gravely  give  us  long  lists  of  kings  and  dynas- 
ties whose  reigns  extend  over  tens  of  thousands  and 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  years. 

When,  howeVer,  we  come  to  sift  truth  from  fable, 
and  determine  how  much  of  historical  fact  there  is  in 
their  fanciful  mythological  creations,  we  find  that  the 
epoch  to  be  assigned  to  the  commencement  of  sober 
history  is  very  recent  indeed. 

We  are  indebted  to  the  Jesuit  missionaries  for  the 
first  reliable  data  bearing  on  the  history  of  China. 
The  learned  chronologist.  Father  Gaubil,  as  the  result 
of  calculations  based  on  certain  eclipses  mentioned  in 
Chinese  annals,  is  disposed  to  regard  the  date  when 
the  emperor  Yao  ascended  the  throne  as  the  first  event 
that  can  be  fixed  with  any  degree  of  accuracy.  Ac- 
cording to  the  computations  of  this  able  Sinalogue, 
the  date  in  question  is  to  be  assigned  to  the  year  2357 

B.  C. 


198  KIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FATTH. 

Father  Gaubil's  chronological  views  were  endorsed 
by  many  competent  critics,  but  a  number  of  eminent 
scholars  who  have  made  a  careful  study  of  the  many 
difficulties  involved  in  determining  any  of  the  remote 
dates  of  Chinese  records  think  that  the  earliest  date  of 
authentic  history  belongs  to  a  period  far  more  recent. 

The  oldest  of  the  classical  books  of  China  is  the 
Chou-King,  by  the  celebrated  philosopher  Confucius, 
which  is  alleged  to  give  the  history  of  the  country 
between  2357  and  627  b.  c.  ;  but  even  those  who  are 
favorable  to  the  great  antiquity  of  the  Celestial  Empire 
are  forced  to  admit  that  the  Chou-King  does  not  afford 
us  a  means  of  establishing  a  system  of  chronology  for 
the  long  period  of  time  which  it  embraces. 

If  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  for  the  great 
antiquity  of  China,  so  often  claimed  for  it  in  the 
native  records,  there  is  still  less  in  the  annals  of  any 
of  the  ancient  nations  of  the  world  with  which  China 
may  reasonably  be  supposed,  if  so  ancient  as  she  pre- 
tends to  be,  to  have  been  in  communication.  Thus, 
Chabas  has  shown  that  the  monuments  of  ancient 
Egypt  include  no  mention  of  the  Celestial  Empire, 
although  there  are  references  made  to  all  other  then 
known  peoples. 

Klaproth,  who  devoted  special  study  to  the  subject 
of  Chinese  history,  denies  the  existence  of  historical 
certainty  in  the  annals  of  China  prior  to  the  year 
782  B.C. — "pretty  nearly  the  era  of  the  foundation 
of  Rome,  when  Hebrew  literature  was  already  on  the 
decline."  In  this  view  he  is  followed  by  Lassen,  who 
does  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  the  Chinese  have  no 
authentic  history  before  the  beginning  of  the  eighth 
century  before  the  Christian  era.     As  a  matter  of  con- 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN    RACE. 


199 


jectiire  he  fixes  the  first  dynasty  of  the  Celestial 
Empire,  that  of  Hia,  at  a  period  not  antedating  the 
year  2205  b.  c. 

At  all  events,  whatever  may  be  the  antiquity  of  the 
Chinese  as  a  race — and  it  does  not  appear  that  we 
shall  ever  have  more  light  on  the  subject  than  we 
possess  at  present — we  can  heartily  subscribe  to  the 
opinion  of  the  erudite  Abbe  Vigouroux,  who  con- 
fidently affirms  that  there  is  nothing  in  Chinese  chro- 
nology which  proves  that  China  as  a  nation  dates  back 
to  the  time  of  Noah,  and  that  we  have  in  the  chronol- 
ogy of  the  Septiiagint  all  the  time  required  for  the 
development  of  its  history. 

Egypt  and  her  Monuments. 

A  special  interest  has  always  centred  in  Egypt  for 
the  reason  that  generations  before  India  and  China 
were  known  the  land  of  the  Nile  was  regarded  as  the 
cradle  of  civilization.  As  far  back  as  we  can  penetrate 
into  her  dim  and  distant  history  we  find  her  in  full 
possession  of  that  religion  and  of  those  arts  and  mon- 
uments which,  from  the  earliest  times,  have  ever 
remained  the  enigma  of  travellers  and  scholars.  We 
know  nothing  of  the  infancy  of  her  strange  people. 
From  the  most  remote  ages  they  appear  to  us  in  full 
maturity  and  in  all  the  splendor  of  their  marvellous 
powers. 

Long  anterior  to  the  Hebrew  Exodus,  before  Abra- 
ham visited  the  land  of  the  Pharaohs,  Egypt  was  old 
and  the  seat  of  a  government  that  had  endured  through 
many  and  powerful  dynasties.  Centuries  before  "the 
Father  of  the  Faithful"  had  left  Ur  of  the  Chaldees 


200  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

the  pyramids  of  Gizeh,  looking  down  upon  the  broad 
valley  of  the  Nile  to  the  east  and  the  great  Libyan 
desert  to  the  west,  stood  as  monuments  that  were  then 
the  evidence  and  the  pride  of  a  great  nation,  as  they 
were  the  wonder  and  the  inspiration  of  Napoleon  and 
his  warriors;  and  this  at  a  period  so  long  subsequent 
that  nothing  remained  to  attest  the  pristine  glory  of 
two  of  the  nation's  greatest  capitals,  both  within  sight 
of  Cheops  and  his  companions,  but  a  mutilated  sphinx 
where  Memphis  once  stood,  and  a  solitary  obelisk  on 
the  site  of  Heliopolis. 

Our  knowledge  of  Egyptian  chronology  is  derived 
from  three  different  sources :  from  Greek  travellers 
who  visited  the  land  of  the  Nile;  from  the  historian 
Manetho,  an  Egyptian  priest,  born  about  300  b.  c, 
who  wrote  in  Greek  a  history  of  his  country  under 
the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus;  and  from  various 
original  monuments,  papyri,  and  inscriptions,  the  most 
important  of  which  have  been  brought  to  light  during 
the  present  century. 

Relying  on  information  obtained  from  the  priests  of 
Heliopolis,  Solon  and  Herodotus  attributed  to  Egypt 
a  very  high  antiquity.  According  to  the  former,  the 
Egyptian  monarchy  stretched  back  full  nine  thousand 
years,  while  according  to  the  latter  the  earliest  annals 
of  the  Egyptian  kings  dated  from  an  epoch  more  than 
two  thousand  years  earlier.  Historians,  however,  have 
given  little  credence  to  the  opinions  of  the  Greeks  re- 
garding the  age  of  Egypt  as  a  nation,  and  hence  we 
may  dismiss  what  they  have  to  say  on  the  subject 
without  further  comment. 

Manetho' s  history,  unfortunately,  has  been  lost,  and 
all  of  it  that  has  come  down  to  us  are  the  lists  of  kings 


THE  AGE   OF  THE   HUMAN    RACE.  201 

and  dynasties  as  preserved  in  the  works  of  Julius  Afri- 
canus,  Eusebius,  and  Syncellus.  Like  the  Indian  and 
Chinese  authors,  Manetho  gives  as  the  first  rulers  of 
his  country  long  dynasties  of  gods  and  heroes.  The 
reign  of  the  gods,  according  to  him,  lasted  no  less  than 
thirteen  thousand  nine  hundred  years — far  from  the 
hundreds  of  thousands  and  millions  of  years  claimed 
for  the  reigns  of  their  gods  by  the  Chinese  and  Hindu 
writers,  but  a  long  period  in  comparison  with  the  time 
allowed  to  the  reign  of  the  kings  of  whom  we  have 
authentic  records. 

Rejecting  as  mythical  the  reigns  of  gods  and  demi- 
gods, the  majority  of  critics  are  disposed  to  regard  as 
historic  the  thirty  dynasties  of  Manetho,  which  begin 
with  Menes,  the  first  ruler  of  Egypt,  and  end  with 
Nectanebo  II.  In  his  scheme  of  chronology  the 
Egyptian  historian  purposes  giving  not  only  the  num- 
ber of  dynasties,  but  also  the  greater  part  of  the 
names  of  the  kings  belonging  to  them,  together  with 
the  duration  of  their  reigns  and  the  order  of  their 
succession. 

But  an  objection  to  Manetho's  lists  is  that  he  enu- 
merates all  the  dynasties  as  if  they  were  successive, 
whereas  it  is  well  known  by  all  students  of  Egyptian 
history  that  several  of  the  dynasties  were  contempo- 
raneous. Again,  he  never  speaks  of  two  rulers  being 
associated  on  the  throne,  when  we  know,  from  incon- 
l^testable  evidence,  that  in  several  instances  two  kings 
occupied  the  throne  at  the  same  time.  A  notable 
case  in  point  is  that  afforded  by  the  joint  reign  of 
Seti  I.  and  his  famous  son — often  called  the  Napoleon 
of  ancient  Egypt — Rameses  II.  A  third  objection  is 
that  he  frequently  exaggerates  the  length  of  time  dur- 


202  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

ing  which  his  inonarchs  bore  sway.  For  this  reason 
critics  generally  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  lists  of 
Manetho  reqnire  the  control  and  snpport  of  other  and 
more  authentic  sources  of  information.  These  are  sup- 
plied by  various  papyri,  inscriptions,  and  monuments. 

Undoubtedly  the  most  important  as  well  as  the  most 
authentic  chronological  record  yet  discovered  is  the 
celebrated  Turin  papyrus.  It  gives  a  list  of  those 
who  ruled  from  the  time  of  the  gods  and  heroes  to 
the  epoch  of  the  Hyksos,  or  shepherd  kings.  Of 
the  greatest  value  so  far  as  it  goes,  it  unfortunately 
exists  only  in  tattered  fragments  and  lacks  complete- 
ness. For  this  reason  Brugsch,  in  his  History  of 
Egypt  luider  the  Pharaohs^  says  of  it:  "As  the  case 
stands  at  present,  no  mortal  man  possesses  the  means 
of  removing  the  difficulties  which  are  inseparable 
from  the  attempt  to  restore  the  original  list  of  kings 
from  the  fragments  of  the  Turin  papyrus.  Far  too 
many  of  the  most  necessary  elements  are  wanting  to 
fill  up  the  lacuncey 

Besides  the  Turin  papyrus  we  have  the  tables  of 
Abydos,  Sakkarah,  and  Karnak,  and  others  of  less 
importance,  all  of  which  have  been  discovered  in 
various  parts  of  the  Nile  Valley  within  the  past  few 
decades.  They  exhibit  the  cartouches  of  a  large  num- 
ber of  the  rulers  of  Egypt,  as  well  as  their  order  of 
succession,  and,  in  spite  of  certain  omissions  and  dis- 
crepancies, are  invaluable  to  the  student  of  Egyptian 
history  and  chronology.* 

But,  important  as  are  the  records  just  mentioned, 
they  do  not  by  any  means  enable  us  to  construct  a 

^  Cf.  Lenorraant's  Histoire  a?icien?ie  de  V  Orient,  tome  ii.  pp. 
37  et  seq. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN   RACE.  203 

system  of  chronology  that  can  be  considered  even 
approximately  correct.  They  tell  us,  indeed,  how 
long  each  king  reigned  and  how  long  each  Apis  lived, 
but  they  do  not  inform  us  as  to  the  connection  of  the 
reign  of  any  one  sovereign  with  that  of  the  ruler  who 
preceded  or  followed  him — of  the  time  that  elapsed 
between  one  Apis  and  the  next  in  succession.  Nei- 
ther do  they  give  us  any  direct  information  regarding 
the  time  during  which  a  sovereign  was  alone  on  the 
throne  and  when  he  had  a  coadjutor.  It  is  certain 
that  there  was  a  number  of  simultaneous  dynasties, 
but  just  how  many  there  were  is  still  a  matter  of  great 
diversity  of  opinion.  According  to  Lenormant,  there 
were  but  two;  according  to  Brugsch,  five;  Leiblein 
and  Bunsen  admit  seven;  while  Poole  and  Wilkinson 
extend  the  number  to  twelve. 

"The  greatest  obstacle  in  the  way  of  establishing  a 
regular  Egyptian  chronology,"  says  the  accomplished 
Egyptologist,  Mariette,  "is  the  fact  that  the  Egyp- 
tians themselves  had  no  chronology."  And  they  had 
no  chronolgy  because  they  had  no  era.  Hence,  as 
Mariette  well  observes:  "Whatever  be  the  apparent 
precision  of  our  computations,  modern  science  will 
always  fail  in  any  attempt  to  restore  that  which  the 
Egyptians  never  possessed."' 

According  to  M.  de  Rouge,  the  first  event  to  which 
a  certain  date  can  be  assigned  is  the  expulsion,  in  the 
year  665  b.  c,  of  the  Ethiopians  by  Psammatik  I.  of 
the  twenty-sixth  dynasty.^     In  this  opinion  Mariette, 

^  Apergu  de  V Histoire  de  V Egypt,  p,  66. 

''■  Cf.  Felix  Robiou,  a  disciple  of  De  Roug-^,  in  his  scholarly 
article,  "Chronologic  de  1' Egypt,"  in  the  Dictiotmairc  apolo- 
getique  de  la  Foi  catholiqjie,  par  I'Abbe  J.  B.  Jaugej'. 


204  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

Brugsch,  and  others  fully  concur.  There  are  nume- 
rous documents  belonging  to  this  period  which  put  the 
matter  beyond  doubt.  Besides,  Egypt  was  then  in 
constant  communication  with  Greece,  so  that  we  have 
information  from  the  writers  of  the  latter,  as  well  as 
from  the  monuments  of  the  former  nation,  of  events 
that  occurred  during  this  period  in  the  land  of  the 
Pharaohs. 

Astronomical  calculations  based  on  the  heliacal  ris- 
ing of  Sothis — Sirius — enable  us,  with  some  degree  of 
exactness,  to  carry  back  the  chronology  of  Egypt  to 
the  year  1322  before  the  Christian  era.'  There  are 
some  historians  who  incline  to  the  belief  that  we  can 
go  back  still  farther — to  the  eighteenth  or  nineteenth 
century  b.  c,  about  the  time  of  the  expulsion  of  the 
Hyksos. 

Beyond  this  all  is  conjecture,  and  we  enter  into  the 
region  of  what  De  Rouge  has  designated  "uncertain 
chronology."  Authorities  and  monuments  are  vague 
and  conflicting.  In  numerous  cases  it  is  impossible  to 
decide  whether  certain  dynasties  were  successive  or 
contemporary;  whether  they  bore  rule  over  the  whole 
of  the  Nile  Valley;  or  whether,  as  in  certain  undoubted 
instances,  their  authority  was  limited  to  only  a  small 
portion  of  the  Delta. 

It  is  these  lacunce,  imperfections,  and  contradictions 
in  all  existing  records  that  render  so  difficult  the  con- 
struction of  a  system  of  chronology,  and  that  have 
given  rise  to  so  many  and  such  diverse  estimates 
regarding  the  age  of  Egypt  as  a  nation. 

Wilkinson  assigns  the  date  at  which  Menes,  the  first 

'  See  La  Monde  et  V Hojuyne  priinitif  selon  la  Bible,  par  Mgr. 
Meignan,  pp.  2,i2>  ^t  seq. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN    RACE.  205 

^  monarch  of  the  first  dynasty,  ascended  the  throne,  to 
the  year  2691  b.  c.  ,  while  Stewart  Poole  fixes  on  the 
year  2717  b.  c.  as  the  date  of  this  event.  Bunsen 
makes  the  figure  3051  or  3623;  Lepsius,  3852;  Lie- 
blein,  3893;  Pessl,  3917;  Chabas,  4000;  Lauth,  4157; 
Brugsch,  4455;  Lenormant  and  Mariette,  5004;  Unger, 
5613;  and  Bockh,  5702.  This,  as  Rawlinson  well  ob- 
serves, "  is  as  if  tlie  best  authorities  upon  Roman  his- 
tory were  to  tell  us,  some  of  them,  that  the  republic 
was  founded  in  b.  c.  508,  and  others  in  B.  c.  3508."  ^ 

"^  How  long  the  Egyptians  were  in  the  valley  of  the 
Nile  before  Menes  ascended  the  throne  is,  if  anything, 
a"  still  more  vexed  question.  Prof.  Owen  claims  seven 
thousand  years  as  the  time  that  has  elapsed  since  the 
origin  of  primitive  Egyptian  civilization.  Others  de- 
mand ten  thousand  and  fifteen  thousand  years,  while 
Baron  Bunsen  puts  the  figure  at  twenty  thousand 
years. 

With  such  conflicting  data  before  us,  furnished  by 
those  who  are  most  competent  to  pronounce  judgment 
in  the  premises,  it  were  unwise  for  us  to  attempt  to 
untie  the  Gordian  knot.  One  of  the  latest  authorities 
on  the  subject,  the  learned  Egyptologist,  M.  Felix 
Robiou,  says  in  reference  to  the  question:  "We  do 
not  know,  even  approximately,  the  duration  of  the 
history  of  the  Pharaohs;  but  the  least  improbable 
conjecture,  one  which  cannot  be  far  from  the  truth, 
is  that  it  commenced  in  the  fourth  millennium  before 
the  Christian  era,  possibly  in  the  first  part  of  this 
millennium."^  The  Abbe  Vigouroux  is  disposed  to 
accept  a  still   higher  figure,    and    to  admit   that  the 

^  See  History  of  Ancient  Egypt,  chap.  xii. 

'  Didionnaire  apologt'tiqite  de  la  Foi  catholique,  loc.  cit. 


2o6  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

reign  of  IVIenes  dates  from  a  period  5000  years  B.  c. 
But  even  granting  this  figure  to  be  correct,  he  insists 
that  "Genesis,  properly  understood,  allows  Egyptol- 
ogists full  liberty  to  attribute  to  Egypt  any  antiquity 
that  a  just  study  of  its  monuments  may  demand."  ^ 

How  long  the  descendants  of  Noah  had  been  estab- 
lished in  the  valley  of  the  Nile  before  the  time  of 
Menes  is  a  question  on  which  the  monuments  of  Egypt 
throw  no  light  whatever.  It  may  have  been  but  a 
few,  and  again  it  may  have  been  several,  centuries. 
But,  whatever  time  may  have  elapsed  between  the 
advent  of  the  Noachidse  and  the  accession  of  Menes 
to  the  throne,  we  can.  rest  quite  assured  that  when  we 
shall  have  full  information  on  the  subject,  Egyptian 
chronology  on  the  one  hand  and  biblical  chronology 
on  the  other  will  be  found  to  be  in  perfect  harmony. 

Cuneiform  Inscriptions  of  Western  Asia. 

During  the  past  fifty  years  much  valuable  informa- 
tion regarding  the  antiquity  and  early  history  of  our 
race  has  been  gleaned  from  investigations  which  have 
been  conducted  and  discoveries  which  have  been  made 
in  various  parts  of  Western  Asia,  and  notably  in  the 
valleys  of  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates.  Prior  to  this 
period  our  knowledge  of  the  language  and  literature, 
as  well  as  of  the  history,  of  Chaldea,  Assyria,  and 
Babylonia  was  as  limited  as  was  that  which  we  had 
of  Egypt  before  the  famous  discoveries  of  Champollion, 
Young,  and  Rosellini. 

It  is  true  that  Berosus,  a  priest  of  Belus  at  Babylon, 
had  about  250  b.  c.  written  in  Greek  a  history  of  Bab- 

^  Revue  des  Questions  scieniifiques,  October,  1886,  p.  4(X). 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN    RACE.  207 

ylonia,  but  of  it  nothing  is  now  extant  except  a 
few  fragments  preserved  in  the  writings  of  Apollodo- 
rus,  Polyhistor,  Eusebius,  Syncellus,  and  some  of  the 
early  Greek  Fathers.  Enough,  however,  is  known 
of  his  chronology  to  convince  us  that  it  is  no  more 
,  deserving  of  credence  than  that  of  Manetho.     Both 

/  cater  to  the  vanity  of  their  countrymen  by  assigning 
a  fabulous  antiquity  to  their  respective  nations  and  by 

N^  making  their  earliest  rulers  gods  and  heroes.  But, 
whereas  Manetho  is  satisfied  with  an  antiquity  of 
thirty  thousand  years  for  his  country  up  to  the  time 
of  Alexander  the  Great,  Berosus  carries  the  history  of 
Babylonia  back  to  a  period  antedating  the  Christian 
era  by  over  four  hundred  and  sixty-eight  thousand 
years.  According  to  this  annalist,  there  were  ten 
kings  before  the  Flood,  whose  aggregate  reigns  had 
a  duration  of  four  hundred  and  thirty-two  thousand 
years.  It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that  even  the  old 
Greeks  and  Romans,  addicted  as  they  were  to  myths 

i  and  fables,  felt  themselves  called  upon  to  reject  such 
pretensions  as  absurd.^ 

I  But  although  the  first  part  of  the  lists  of  Berosus, 

like  the  first  part  of  Manetho's  lists,  is  mythical,  the 
latter  portions  of  his  chronological  scheme,  like  that 
of  the  Egyptian  historian,  is  substantially  correct,  at 
least  so  far  as  concerns  the  time  demanded  for  the 
various  dynasties  and  rulers  mentioned.  According 
to  Rawlinson,  the  earliest  historical  date  of  Berosus  is 

'  Cicero  in  his  work  De  Divinatione,  in  referring  to  the 
Chaldeans,  says  of  them  :  "  Condemnemus  hos  aut  stultitise 
aut  vanitatis  aut  impudentise,  qui  CCCCLXX  millia  annorum 
ut  ipsi  dicunt  monumentis  comprehensa  continent  et  mentiri 
judicemus." 


2o8  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND    FAITH. 

about  2458  B.  c,  considerably  more  remote  than  the 
earliest  authentic  date  of  Egyptian  history. 

It  is,  however,  from  the  inscriptions  on  tablets,  cyl- 
inders, and  other  monuments  that  have  been  discov- 
ered where  once  stood  the  flourishing  cities  of  Assur, 
Sippara,  Erech,  Accad,  and  those  famous  capitals  of 
the  ancient  world,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  not  to  speak 
of  numerous  other  localities  in  Western  Asia,  that  we 
derive  our  most  accurate  knowledg^e  reg^ardinof  the 
antiquity  as  well  as  the  history  of  the  peoples  who 
in  ages  long  past  constituted  the  great  kingdoms  of 
Chaldea,   Babylonia,   and  Assyria. 

And  here  we  meet  with  new  triumphs  of  erudition 
and  genius  that  remind  us  of  the  wonderful  achieve- 
ments that  have  rendered  the  name  of  Champollion 
immortal.  For  centuries  past  specimens  of  wedge- 
writing,  or  nail-like  inscriptions,  found  among  the 
ruins  of  various  cities  of  the  Orient,  had  attracted  the 
attention  of  scholars  and  travellers,  but  until  a  few 
decades  ago  the  meaning  of  these  strange  figures  was 
involved  in  even  greater  mystery  than  that  which 
enveloped  the  hieroglyphics  of  the  temples  and  obe- 
lisks of  the  land  of  the  Pharaohs.  To  the  wandering 
Arab  they  were  the  work  of  the  genii,  while  to  the 
European  they  were  often  but  the  expression  of  the 
fantasy  of  some  architect  who  wished  to  show  in  how 
many  diiferent  ways  he  could  combine  these  nail-like 
forms.  ^ 

In  1765,  during  his  journeyings  in  the  East,  Karsten 
Niebuhr,  the  father  of  the  illustrious  historian,  copied 
some  of  the  inscriptions  at  Persepolis,  and  offered  sev- 

'  Cf.  Vigouroux's  La  Bible  et  les  Dccouvertes  modemes,  tome 
i.  pp.  34  et  seq. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN    RACE.  2O9 

eral  theories  regarding  them  which  subsequent  inves- 
tigators have  confirmed.  Scholars  in  various  parts  of 
Europe  now  became  interested  in  cuneiform  writing, 
but  all  attempts  to  decipher  it  were  fruitless.  A 
Champollion  was  required  for  the  task,  but  he  ap- 
peared not.  A  genius  like  his  is  vouchsafed  to  the 
world  only  at  rare  intervals. 

In  1802,  Grotefend  succeeded  in  making  out  the 
names  of  Darius  and  Xerxes,  and  thus  supplied  a  key 
for  the  reading  of  the  cuneiform  characters,  as  Cham- 
pollion at  a  later  date  discovered  the  key  to  the  Egyp- 
tian hieroglyphics  by  deciphering  the  names  of  Ptolemy 
and  Cleopatra  on  the  now-famous  Rosetta  Stone.  But 
Grotefend's  work  was  far  from  being  as  thorough  as 
Champollion's."  While  the  former  was  able  to  read 
but  a  few  names — he  never  accomplished  more — the 
latter  was  fortunate  enough,  unaided  and  alone,  to 
decipher  not  only  the  writing  of  ancient  Egypt,  but 
also  to  resuscitate  its  grammar  and  language  as  well. 

A  third  of  a  century  elapsed  before  anything  further 
was  done.  At  the  end  of  this  period  Burnouf  in  France 
and  I^assen  in  Germany,  independently  and  almost 
simultaneously,  announced  the  discovery  of  the  alpha- 
bet of  the  trilingual  inscriptions  of  Persepolis.  This 
was  a  giant  step  forward,  and  contributed  materially 
toward  the  solution  of  a  problem  on  which,  for  a  long 
time,  some  of  the  keenest  intellects  of  Europe  had 
been  engaged. 

The  next  great  advance  made  was  the  publication, 
in  1857,  in  the  Journal  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society, 
by  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson,  of  the  Babylonian  text  of 
the  trilingual  inscription  of  Darius  on  the  rock  of 
Behistun.     This  rock  often,  and  justly  so,  called  the 

14 


2IO  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 


X 


Rosetta  Stone  of  Assyriology,  had  on  it  inscriptions  in 
three  different  languages,  ancient  Persian  and  Medic 
and  Babylonian  or  Assyrian.  As  .soon  as  the  Babylo- 
nian text  was  deciphered  by  the  brilliant  English 
colonel  a  key  was  supplied  for  the  interpretation  of  the 
thousands  of  unilingual  inscriptions  found  everywhere 
along  the  valleys  of  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates. 

These  conquests  of  genius,  added  to  Botta's  discov- 
ery, a  few  years  before,  of  the  ruins  of  Nineveh,  which 
for  nearly  twenty-five  centuries  was  so  effectually  buried 
under  the  earth  that  even  its  site  was  unknown,  spurred 
on  antiquaries  and  explorers  to  new  achievements,  and 
a  long  succession  of  triumphs  was  the  result.  Botta 
had  unearthed  the  palace  of  Sargon  and  discovered  a 
large  number  of  tablets  and  inscriptions  of  the  utmost 
value.  Layard,  Loftus,  Place,  Oppert,  George  Smith, 
Hormuzd  Rassam,  and  others  followed  him  and  ex- 
humed monuments  and  palaces  which  were  bewilder- 
ing in  their  number,  extent,  and  magnificence.' 

The  Oldest  Library  in  the  World. 

But  by  far  the  most  important  discovery,  the  one  in 
which  we  are  at  present  most  interested,  and  the  one 
which,  more  than  all  the  others  combined,  contributed 
to  put  Assyriology  on  a  firm  and  permanent  basis,  one 
which  has  proved  of  untold  value  to  biblical  students, 
was  the  discovery  by  Layard  in  1850  of  the  celebrated 
library  of  Assurbanipal. 

This  library  was  one  of  many  that  formerly  existed 

'  Cf.  Rawlinson's  Seven  Great  Monarchies,  AssN-ria,  chap  vi., 
and  Lenomiant's  Histoire  ancieiine  de  V  Orient,  tome  iv.  chap. 
iv. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  211 

ill  all  the  large  cities  of  Chaldea  and  Assyria,  but  the 
only  one  that  so  far  has  been  discovered,  and,  it  may  be, 
the  only  one  that  has  been  preserved.'  The  Assyrians 
had  neither  papyrus,  like  the  Egyptians,  nor  parch- 
ment, like  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  nor  paper,  such  as 
we  possess.  Their  books  were  composed  of  tablets  of 
clay — coctiles  laterculi^  Pliny  calls  them — a  fortunate 
circumstance,  indeed,  as  they  would  doubtless  have 
otherwise  been  destroyed  long  centuries  ago.  As  it  is, 
we  have  a  great  portion  of  them,  and  man}-  of  them  in 
a  good  state  of  preservation. 

Assurbanipal — the  Sardanapalus  of  the  Greeks,  the 
grand  monai'qiie  of  Assyria,  the  patron  of  art,  science, 
and  literature — had  in  his  library,  besides  works  on 
history,  astronomy,  astrology,  theology,  politics,  geog- 
raphy, and  other  branches  of  knowledge,  a  valuable 
collection  of  syllabaries,  grammars,  and  dictionaries, 
which  the  Assyrians  themselves  had  used  in  learning 
the  significance  of  the  symbols  and  in  mastering  the 
difficulties  of  their  written  language.  By  means  of 
the  contents  of  this  library — undoubtedly  the  oldest  in 
the  world — which  Providence  at  an  opportune  moment 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  scholars  of  Europe,  Assyri- 
ologists  were  able  to  lift  all  that  was  left  of  the  veil 
that  still  obscured  the  secrets  of  the  mysterious  wedge- 
writing  of  Western  Asia.  In  the  words  of  Maspero:^ 
"  In  less  than  thirty  years  a  world  of  languages  and  of 

'The  noted  German  writer,  Scholz,  speak.s  of  it  as  "cine 
Bibliothek  aus  dem  9  Jahrhunderte  v.  Chr.,  und  zwar  Alles  ini 
Original."  Cf.  77?^  Hii^her  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  chap, 
ii.,  by  A.  H.  vSayce. 

^  Histoire  ancieiine  des  Peuplcs  de  t  Orient,  quatrienie  edition, 
1886,  Appendice,  p.  712. 


212  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

peoples,  before  unknown,  was  discovered;  thirty  cen- 
turies of  history  were  brought  from  the  tomb  to  the 
full  light  of  day." 

To  realize  fully  the  extent  of  this  wonderful  find, 
it  is  sufficient  to  state  that  the  number  of  tablets  esti- 
mated to  have  existed  originally  in  the  royal  library 
of  Nineveh  was  not  less  than  ten  thousand.     Accord- 
ing  to  Mr.  Birch,   there  were  in   1872  about  twenty 
thousand  fragments  of  these  tablets  in  the  British  ]\Iu- 
seum,  not  to  speak  of  the  countless  fragments  in  other 
museums  and  in  the  possession  of  private  individuals 
in  various  parts  of  the  world.     It  has  been  computed 
that  before  the  destruction  of  the  library  these  books 
of  baked   clay  would   have   made  full    five  hundred 
printed  quarto  volumes  of  five  hundred  pages  each. 
r^'        The  books  of  this  wonderful  library,    relating   to 
the  manners  and  customs,  the  religion,  science,  and 
\       governments,   of   the   ancient  peoples  who  inhabited 
I       the  lands  watered  by  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates, 
!       are  interesting  and  valuable,  but  the  tablets  bearing 
'        astronomical  records  are,  for  our  present  purpose,  far 
more  important.      Thanks  to  the   computations  and 
tabular  statements  of  the  old  Chaldean  astronomers, 
we  are  now  able  to  fix  the  dates  of  many  historical 
facts  of  Babylonian  history  as  far  back  as  the  sixth 
\      century  b.  c.  with  almost  mathematical  precision. 

Chaldean  Astronomy  and  Assyrian  Chro- 
nology. 

It  had  long  been  known  that  the  origin  of  astron- 
omy could  be  traced  to  IMesopotamia,  and  that  the 
Chaldeans  were  the  first  astronomers.     But  beyond  this 


THE  AGE  OF  THE   HUMAN   RACE.  213 

general  fact  all  was  fancy  and  conjecture.  Few  or  no 
details  were  known  or  available.  About  all  that  could 
be  said  on  the  subject  was  included  in  the  following 
poetical  paragraph  of  Lalande's  Astroiiomie^  which 
was  published  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago  : 

"The  inhabitants  of  the  vast  plains  of  Sennaar, 
where  was  built  the  city  of  Babylon,  were,  accord- 
ing to  many  savants,  the  oldest  astronomers  and  the 
first  of  all  observers;  at  least  their  observations  are 
the  oldest  which  have  come  down  to  us.  Everything 
concurred  to  direct  their  attention  toward  the  heavens. 
The  care  of  their  flocks  was  their  principal  occupation. 
But  the  heat  of  the  day  made  them  select  the  night 
for  their  labors  and  their  journeyings,  so  that  the  spec- 
tacle of  the  heavenly  bodies  forced  itself,  as  it  were, 
on  their  attention  in  spite  of  themselves." 

Within  the  last  few  years,  however,  a  great  ad- 
vance has  been  made  in  our  knowledge  respecting 
the  beginnings  of  the  science  of  astronomy,  and  our 
information  regarding  the  early  work  and  methods 
of  the  first  of  the  world's  star-gazers  is  comparatively 
complete.  The  learned  palseographists  and  mathe- 
maticians Fathers  Strassmaier  and  Epping  of  the  So- 
ciety of  Jesus,  as  the  result  of  a  careful  decipherment 
of  some  of  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  found  in  the 
library  of  Assurbanipal,  and  of  a  series  of  long  and 
complicated  calculations  that  only  astronomers  can 
fully  appreciate,  have  demonstrated  conclusively  that 
as  far  back  as  the  sixth  century  before  our  era  the 
astronomers  of  Babylonia  had.  a  very  accurate  know- 
ledge of  the  science  of  the  stars,  and  that  they  made 
observations  of  the  eclipses  of  the  sun  and  moon,  of 
the  oppositions  and  conjunctions  of  the  planets  and  of 


214  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND  FAITH. 

some  of  the  stars,  with  a  degree  of  accuracy  that  is 
simply  marvellous.  More  than  this,  they  had  a  cal- 
endar remarkable  for  its  exactness,  and  a  collection 
of  tables  based  on  observations  and  calculations  that 
approximated  in  many  respects  to  our  modern  ephem- 
eris.' 

But  remote  as  is  the  past  to  which  the  tablets  of 
the  Chaldean  astronomers  convey  back  the  chronolo- 
gist,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  new  discoveries  will 
supply  still  other  dates  of  a  much  greater  antiquity. 
The  study  of  Chaldean  astronomy  from  cuneiform  in- 
scriptions is  but  in  its  infancy,  and  yet  it  has  already 
disclosed  a  number  of  facts  of  which  not  even  the 
most  sanguine  Assyriologist  ever  dreamed.  One  of 
these  facts — and  it  is  of  paramount  importance — is 
that  the  Assyrians  (and  the  same  may  be  said  of  the 
Chaldeans  and  Babylonians)  had  a  chronological  sense 
— something  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  entirely 
wanting  to  the  ancient  Hindus,  Chinese,  and  Egyp- 
tians. This  fact,  if  no  other,  should  inspire  more 
confidence  in  the  chronological  records  of  Assyria, 
Chaldea,  and  Babylonia  than  we  are  warranted  in 
feeling  in  those  of  any  of  the  other  ancient  peoples 
\^of  the  Orient. 

The  Assyrians,  unlike  the  Egyptians  and  Chinese, 
did  not  reckon  time  by  the  years  during  which  their 

^  See  "Astronomie  a  Babylone,"  by  the  Rev.  J.  D.  Lucas,  S.  J., 
Revue  des  Questiotis  sciefitifiqties,  October,  1890,  and  April,  1891. 
Also,  by  the  same  writer,  "  Ephemerides  planetaires  des  Chal- 
deens,"  in  the  same  Revue  for  Januar\',  1892.  Consult  likewise 
"  Astronomisches  aus  Bab3ion  oder  das  Wissen  der  Chaldaer 
iiber  den  gestirnten  Himmel,"  by  Fathers  Strassmaier  and 
Epping,  S.  J.,  published  in  1889  as  a  supplement  to  the  Siim- 
men  a74s  Maria  Laach. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN    RACE.  215 

kings  held  the  sceptre,  but  rather  by  the  names  of 
eponym  officials,  called  limmu^  who,  like  the  archons 
at  Athens  and  the  consuls  of  Rome,  gave  their  names 
to  the  years  during  which  they  held  office.  By  means 
of  eponym  canons  or  lists,  some  of  which  have  been 
preserved,  we  are  able  to  assign  with  comparative 
certainty  the  dates  of  events  that  occurred  at  very 
remote  periods  of  Assyrian  history. 

Thus,  from  inscriptions  at  hand  we  know  that  the 
institution  of  the  Hmmu  dates  as  far  back  as  the  four- 
teenth century  B.  c,  and  there  are  valid  reasons  for 
believing  that  it  existed  long  prior  to  this  epoch. 
Other  inscriptions  that  Assyriologists  seem  disposed  to 
credit  carry  us  back  to  the  year  2274  before  our  era, 
while  the  celebrated  tablet  of  Nabonidos,  about  which 
so  much  has  been  written,  gives  us  a  date  nearly  fifteen 
centuries  more  remote.  This  remarkable  monument, 
now  preserved  in  the  British  Museum,  seems  to  fix  the 
date  of  the  reign  of  Sargon  I.,  the  father  of  Narsam- 
Sin,  at  about  thirty-eight  centuries  before  the  Chris- 
tian era — a  date  much  earlier  than  was  formerly  at- 
tributed to  this  sovereign.^ 

*  Lenormant,  Histoire  ancieiine  de  /'  Orient,  tome  v.  p.  79,  in 
referring  to  this  tablet,  observes:  "  Si  cette  indication  est  ex- 
acte,  comme  rien  ne  s'y  oppose,  Narsam-Sin  regnait  vers  3750 
et  Sargon,  son  pere,  vers  3800  avant  J.  C. ;  c'est  la  plus  ancienne 
date  certaine  de  I'histoire."  Mr.  Sayce,  the  distinguished  Eng- 
lish Assyriologist,  hesitates  about  accepting  this  date  as 
reliable. 

Certain  statues  found  by  M.  de  Sarzec  at  Tel-loh  are,  we  are 
assured,  to  be  referred  to  even  an  earlier  date  than  the  tablet  of 
Nabonidos.  According  to  the  inscriptions  which  these  statues 
bear,  they  have  been  supposed  to  date  back  as  far  as  4000  or 
4500  years  B.  c.  The  eminent  French  Assyriologist,  M.  Heuzey, 
however,  contends  that  they  belong  to  a  more  recent  period. 


/ 


2l6  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

According  to  the  testimony  of  other  monnments, 
quite  a  number  of  kings  occupied  the  throne  during 
the  time  that  intervened  between  the  reign  of  Sargon 
I.  and  the  Deluge  of  Noah.  This,  contrary  to  the 
generally  received  opinion,  would  place  the  Flood  at  a 
period  4000  years  b.  c.  at  least,  and  possibly  at  a  date 
much  earlier.  Certain  inscriptions  from  the  library  of 
Assurbanipal  relating  to  the  Deluge,  and  deciphered 
by  Mr.  George  Smith,'  led  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson,  than 
whom  no  one  is  more  competent  to  express  an  opinion 
on  the  subject,  to  ascribe  to  the  great  cataclysm  so 
graphically  described  in  Genesis  a  date  preceding  our 
era  by  six  or  seven  thousand  years. 

Whatever  of  truth  there  may  be  in  Rawlinson's  esti- 
mate, it  seems  certain  that  Assyriologists  are  able  to 
carry  back  the  history  of  our  race  to  a  more  remote 
period  than  can  possibly,  with  any  show  of  reason,  be 
claimed  for  it  by  the  chronologies  of  India,  China,  or 
Egypt.  And  it  appears  quite  reasonable  that  this 
should  be  so.  Central  Asia,  if  not  Mesopotamia,  ac- 
cording to  tradition  and  science,  was  most  likely  the 
birthplace  of  the  human  species,  and  hence  it  seems 
probable  that  the  people  who  inhabited  the  valleys 
of  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates  should  have  a  greater 
antiquity  than  those  who  lived  in  the  land  of  the  Nile 
or  in  regions  more  distant  from  the  first  home  of  the 
race.  If,  therefore,  it  should  be  proven  that  Egypt 
had  a  civilization  antedating  the  Christian  era  by  five 
thousand  years  or  more,  as  many  suppose,  we  should 
be  quite  warranted  in  claiming  for  the  ancient  peoples 
of  Mesopotamia  a  civilization  several   centuries  older, 

'  Cf.  Les  Premieres  Civilizations,  par  Fran 90! s  Lenormant, 
tome  ii.,  "Le  Deluge  et  I'fipopee  babjlonienne." 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  217 

and  thus  fixing  the  beginnings  of  its  history  some- 
where near  unto  six  millennia  before  the  time  of 
Christ. 

/  Linguistics  and  ethnology  tell  the  same  story  as  his- 
/  tory  and  astronomy.  They  demand  a  greater  antiquity 
for  mankind  than  biblical  scholars  have  hitherto  been 
disposed  to  concede.'  Like  history  and  astronomy, 
they  seem  to  fix  the  dispersion  of  the  sons  of  Noah 
at  about  five  or  six  thousand  years  before  Christ — 
a  much  longer  period  than  is  indicated  by  any  of  the 
versions  of  the  Bible  as  usually  interpreted.  Adding 
this  time  to  the  two  thousand  years  that  are  ordinarily 
supposed  to  have  elapsed  between  the  creation  of 
Adam  and  the  Deluge,  and  the  nineteen  centuries  that 
date  from  the  coming  of  Christ,  we  have  for  the  age 
of  the  human  race  a  period  that  covers  nearly  ten 
"^.thousand  years. 

It  cannot  be  urged  that  these  figures  are  too  liberal. 
On  the  contrary,  the  estimate  is  rather  conservative. 
There  are  many,  as  we  have  seen — and  I  have  men- 
tioned but  a  few  of  those  who  have  studied  the  ques- 
tion— who  insist  on  it  that  history  and  astronomy,  as 
well  as  linguistics  and  ethnology,  teach  us  that  man 
has  been  on  the  earth  fifteen  or  twenty  thousand  years, 
if  not  more.  But  even  these  figures,  high  as  they  are, 
are  small  in  comparison  with  those  furnished  us  by 
geology  and  prehistoric  archaeology. 

How  reconcile  these  dates  and  figures  with  scriptural 
chronology  ?    Are  not  the  Bible  and  science  hopelessly 

*  Cf.  Mgr.  de  Harlez  in  La  Co7i traverse,  1881,  pp.  577,  578  ;  also 
the  admirable  criticism,  by  the  learned  Father  Van  den  Gheyn, 
S.  J.,  of  the  Origifies  ariacce  of  Karl  Penka,  in  the  Revue  des 
Questions  scientifiques,  p.  605,  April,  1884. 


21 8  BIBLE,  SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

at  variance  in  regard  to  the  antiquity  of  man,  and  have 
we  not  here  at  least  an  instance  of  that  irreconcilable 
conflict  we  hear  so  much  of  between  the  certain  results 
of  modern  scientific  research  and  the  inspired  record  ? 
I  do  not  think  so.  On  the  contrary,  I  am  firmly  con- 
vinced that  a  careful  and  unprejudiced  study  of  the 
question  of  man's  antiquity  will  issue  in  proving,  as 
has  been  so  often  done  heretofore  in  other  matters,  that 
the  Bible  and  science  are  at  one  regarding  the  question 
now  under  discussion,  and  will  eventually  render  the 
same  testimony. 

Before,  however,  attempting  to  demonstrate  the  truth 
of  this  proposition,  I  shall  take  up  certain  objections 
that  are  deemed  more  formidable  than  any  which  have 
yet  been  urged,  and  which,  during  the  past  third  of  a 
century  especially,  have  attracted  an  attention  and 
assumed  an  importance  that  render  all  other  difficulties 
comparatively  insignificant.  The  objections  referred 
to  are  presented  in  the  names  of  geology  and  that  newer 
science,  prehistoric  archaeology.  The  examination  of 
these  objections  and  the  discussion  of  this,  the  most 
interesting  portion  of  our  thesis,  I  reserve  for  the  fol- 
lowing chapters. 


CHAPTER  11. 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  MAN  ACCORDING    TO    GEOLOGY 

and  climatology. 
Primitive  Man. 

THE  ancient  peoples  of  the  Orient,  as  we  saw  in 
the  last  chapter,  were  one  in  asserting  for  them- 
selves a  venerable  antiqnity.  Not  content  with  tens 
of  thousands,  many  of  them  demanded  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  years  as  the  period  of  time  covered  by 
their  annals.  They  were  likewise  a  unit  in  claiming 
descent  from  gods  and  demigods  and  in  attributing 
godhead  to  all  of  their  earlier  rulers.  Many,  if  not  all 
of  them,  were  firm  believers  in  a  golden  age,  an  age 
of  justice  and  happiness,  which  distinguished  the  first 
era  of  the  world's  history  from  all  subsequent  periods, 
and  placed  the  beginnings  of  humanity  on  a  much 
higher  -plane  than  our  race  has  since  been  able  to 
attain.  "  Then,"  says  Hesiod,  in  his  Works  and  Days^ 
"without  chagrin  or  disquiet,  exempt  from  labor  and 
sorrow,  men  lived  like  gods.  Infirmity,  the  companion 
of  old  age,  was  unknown.  Enjoying,  even  in  advanced 
years,  the  pleasures  of  youth,  death  to  them  was  but 
as  a  sweet  sleep.  A  fruitful  earth  furnished  spontane- 
ously the  most  delicious  fruits,  and  the  abundance 
thereof  removed  all  occasion  of  envy.  The  peaceful 
and  voluntary  occupation  which  they  found  in  pro- 

219 


220  BIBLE,  SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

viding  for  their  daily  needs  removed  the  tedium  of 
leisure  and  the  weariness  entailed  by  idleness."  ' 

The  golden  age,  in  which  we  may  see  a  faint  recol- 
lection of  the  Garden  of  Eden,  was  followed,  in  the 
order  given,  by  the  ages  of  silver,  brass,  bronze,  and 
iron.  The  last  was  the  worst  of  all,  and  was  marked 
by  sorrow  and  suffering  and  misery — ills  which  in  the 
earlier  ages  were  unknown. 

Modern  science  also,  especially  geology  and  prehis- 
toric archseology,  makes  great  demands  on  time,  as 
well  as  on  our  faith,  in  its  teachings  regarding  the  age 
of  the  human  species.  But  in  marked  contrast  with 
the  tenets  of  the  ancients  concerning  the  origin  and 
primitive  condition  of  mankind  are  the  views  enter- 
tained on  the  same  subjects  by  the  majority  of  our 
modern  scientists  and  "advanced  thinkers."  Instead 
of  ages  of  gold,  silver,  brass,  bronze,  and  iron,  which 
were  supposed  to  characterize,  in  the  order  named,  the 
beginnings  of  humanity,  prehistoric  archaeology  tells 
us  we  must  substitute  ages  of  stone,  bronze,  and  iron. 
According  to  the  sages  of  antiquity — and  they  gave 
but  a  dim  reflection  of  the  biblical  teachings  on  the 
subject — the  earliest  inhabitants  of  the  earth  were  a 
more  perfect  race  of  men  than  the  world  has  since 
known.  But  they  fell  from  their  high  estate  and 
degenerated  into  degraded  sons  of  once  noble  sires. 
Modern  scientists  hold  an  opposite  view.  The  history 
of  humanity,  they  tell  us,  is  not  one  of  degeneration, 
but  one  of  development;  not  one  of  descent  from  a 
higher  plane,  but  one  of  ascent  from  a  lower;  not  one 
that  makes  mankind  of  noble  lineage,  as  we  have  long 
been  wont  to  believe,  but  one  that  .declares  the  species 
•  Cf.  Ovid'vS  Metamorphoses,  lib.  i. 


/ 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN    RACE.  221 

to  have  had  a  far  humbler  and  a  more  ignoble  begin- 
ning.    We  are  not  of 

"  Adam,  the  goodliest  man  of  men  since  bom, 
His  sons  ;" 

but  the  descendants  of  some  speechless  pithecanthrope 
— alalus^  Hackel  calls  it — or  some  tailless,  narrow- 
nosed  ape  that  lived  and  disappeared  untold  aeons  be- 
fore the  advent  of  the  traditional  ancestor  of  our  race. 

If  we  are  to  credit  geologists  and  archaeologists,  the 
time  which  has  elapsed  since  the  appearance  of  the 
first  man  on  earth  is  a  very  variable  quantity,  for  no 
two  persons  have  yet  been  able  to  agree  upon  the  pre- 
cise number  of  years  to  be  assigned  as  the  age  of  the 
species. 

Le  Conte,  in  concluding  his  discussion  of  the  an- 
tiquity of  the  human  race,  says:  "We  have,  as  yet, 
no  certain  knowledge  of  man's  time  on  earth.  It  may 
be  one  hundred  thousand  years  or  it  may  be  only  ten 
thousand  years,  but  more  probably  the  former  than 
the  latter."  ^  M.  Mortillet,  one  of  the  founders  and 
chief  representatives  of  the  new  science  of  prehistoric 
archaeology,  is  more  positive  in  his  statements. 
"Man,"  he  says,  "appeared  in  Europe  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Quaternary  age,  at  least  two  hun- 
dred and  thirty  or  two  hundred  and  forty  thousand 
years  ago."  ^  These  figures  are  nearly  the  same  as 
those  given  by  Lyell  and  Lubbock,  who  estimated  the 
age  of  the  human  race  to  be  about  a  quarter  of  a  mil- 
lion years. 

Biichner,  although  less  definite,  is  not  less  positive, 
about  the  great  antiquity  of  man.      He  regards  it  as 

'  Elements  of  Geology,  p.  570.  '  Le  Prehistorique,  p.  628. 


222  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

perfectly  certain  "  that  the  known  historical  period  is 
a  mere  nothing,  in  point  of  time,  when  compared  with 
the  periods  during  which  our  race  has  actually  inhab- 
ited the  earth."  '  According  to  A.  Laugel,  whom 
Biichner  quotes  with  approval,  modern  science  has 
thrown  back  "the  origin  of  man  to  a  period  so  dis- 
tant that  in  comparison  with  it  our  written  history 
appears  like  a  passing  moment  in  a  series  of  centuries 
which  the  mind  is  unable  to  grasp." 

Hackel  and  Monism. 

But  It  was  reserved  for  the  notorious  professor  of 
Jena,  Ernst  Hackel,  to  settle  for  once  and  for  all 
any  doubts  that  the  Darwinian  school  of  science 
might  still  entertain  regarding  the  antiquity  and  ori- 
gin of  the  human  race.  In  his  History  of  Creation^ 
after  referring  to  the  researches  of  some  of  his  com- 
peers, he  declares  that  "the  numerous  and  interesting 
discoveries  presented  to  us  by  these  extensive  investiga- 
tors of  late  years  on  the  primeval  history  of  the  human 
race  place  the  important  fact,  long  since  probable  for 
many  other  reasons,  beyond  a  doubt,  that  the  human 
race,  as  such,  has  existed  for  more  than  twenty  thou- 
sand years.  But  it  is  also  probable  that  more  than  a 
hundred  thousand  years,  perhaps  many  hundred  thou- 
sand years,  have  elapsed  since  its  first  appearance."^ 

The  professor,  however,  is  not  satisfied  with  this 
simple  but  vague  statement.  As  if  guilty  of  some 
great  blunder  in  underrating  the  antiquity  of  man, 

^  Man  171  the  Past,  Present,  aiid  Future,  p.  43,  English  trans- 
lation. 
*  Vol,  ii.  p.  298. 


THE  AGE   OF  -THE    HUMAN    RACE.  223 

he  hastens  to  correct  himself.  He  remembers  that 
he  is  the  hierophant  of  Monism,  and  that,  according  to 
the  theory  of  Evolution,  of  which  he  has  always  been 
an  ardent  champion,  there  never  was,  properly  speak- 
ing, a  first  man.  The  countless  transformations,  ex- 
tending through  long  geological  eras,  which  resulted 
in  giving  to  one  or  several  animals  whose  environment 
was  specially  favorable  the  distinguishing  characteris- 
tics of  the  human  species  were  so  insensible  that  it  is 
impossible  not  only  to  fix  the  date  of  the  apparition 
of  man,  but  also  equally  impossible  to  predicate  of 
any  given  individual  that  it  was  the  first  representa- 
tive of  humanity  in  its  last  stage  of  development 
He  therefore  tells  us,  unambiguously,  that  the  evo- 
lution of  our  race  from  the  lower  forms  of  animal 
life  "took  place  so  slowly  that  we  can  in  no  wise 
speak  of  the  first  man." 

"Now,"  he  continues,  "whether  we  reckon  the 
period  during  which  the  human  race,  as  such,  has 
existed  and  diffused  itself  over  the  earth  as  twenty 
thousand,  a  hundred  thousand,  or  many  hundred 
thousands  of  years,  the  lapse  of  time  is  in  any  case 
immensely  small  in  comparison  with  the  inconceiv- 
able length  of  time  which  was  requisite  for  the 
gradual  development  of  the  long  chain  of  human 
ancestors." 

And  the  professor  is  good  enough  not  to  leave  his 
readers  in  ignorance  regarding  the  genealogy  of  man 
and  the  processes  which  obtained  in  his  development 
from  the  lower  forms  of  animal  life.  All  is  clear  to 
him,  and  he  is  desirous  of  giving  others  the  benefit 
of  at  least  the  reflected  light  of  his  brilliant  intellect. 
He  exhibits  a  genealogical  tree  of  twenty-two  parent- 


224  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

forms  which,  he  assures  lis,  "may  be  regarded,  with 
more  or  less  certainty,  as  the  animal  ancestors  of  the 
human  race,  and  which  must  be  looked  upon  as,  in  a 
sense,  the  most  important  stages  of  evolution  in  the 
long  evolutionary  series  from  the  one-celled  organisms 
up  to  man."'  But  he  would  not  have  us  infer  that 
the  twenty-two  types  he  gives  us  afford  the  complete 
pedigree  of  the  human  species.  Far  from  it.  He  is 
very  explicit  in  stating  that  "the  number  of  species 
— or,  more  accurately,  form-stages  which  are  distin- 
guished as  'species' — must,  in  the  human  ancestral 
line,  in  the  course  of  many  millions  of  years,  have 
amounted  to  many  thousands,  the  number  of  genera 
to  many  hundreds." 

The  original  ancestor  of  our  species,  according  to 
Hackel's  teaching,  was  a  simple  moneron,  a  small 
particle  of  structureless  protoplasm,  a  creature  of  prim- 
itive slime  or  plasson.  This  moneron,  which  actually 
stands  "on  the  very  boundary  between  organic  and 
inorganic  natural  bodies,"  Hack  el  is  frank  enough  to 
tell  us,  is  like  that  "most  remarkable  of  all  monera," 
the  Bathybhis  Hceckelii^  discovered  and  described  by 
Huxley  in  1868,  and  named  after  his  friend,  the  pro- 
fessor of  Jena  and  the  fantastical  author  of  Natiirliche 
Schbpfungsgeschichte.  To  this  last  statement  we  may 
give  our  cordial  assent,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact 
of  its  ignominious  fate  at  the  hands  of  the  eminent 
Catholic  geologist,  M.  de  Lapparent,^  who  showed  that 
its  reputed  existence  was  a  myth;  and  in  view  of  the 
further  fact  that  the  inventor  of  this  missing  link  be- 
tween the  inorganic  and  organic  worlds  was  obliged, 

'  The  Evobitioii  of  Man,  vol.  ii.  p.  42. 

*  Revue  des  Questions  sae?itifiques^  January,  1878. 


THE   AGE  OF   THE    HUMAN   RACE.  22$ 

in  the  presence  of  the  British  Association  for  the  Ad- 
vancement of  Science,  assembled  at  Sheffield,  to  admit 
that  what  he  had  heralded  forth  to  the  world,  with  a 
great  flonrish  of  trnmpets,  as  the  long  sought-for  pri- 
mal form  of  organized  matter  was,  in  reality,  nothing 
more  than  a  simple  precipitate  of  sulphate  of  lime. 

From  HackePs  moneron  "the  infinitely  long  series 
of  slowly  and  gradually  differentiating  animal  forms" 
finally  "attained  to  the  amphioxus,  from  that  to  the 
primeval  fish,  from  the  primeval  fish  to  the  first  mam- 
mal, and  again  from  the  latter  to  man."  This  devel- 
opment of  our  species  from  the  original  speck  of  pro- 
toplasm which,  away  back  in  the  Laurentian  period, 
spontaneously  evolved  itself  from  a  few  favorably  col- 
located atoms  of  carbon,  oxygen,  hydrogen,  and  nitro- 
gen, was,  as  might  be  expected,  a  slow  process.  Hence 
we  are  informed  that  "  the  organic  history  of  the  earth 
must  not  be  calculated  by  thousands  of  years,  but  by 
palseontological  and  geological  periods,  each  of  which 
comprises  many  thousands  of  years,  and  perhaps  mil- 
lions or  even  milliards  of  thousands  of  years."' 

It  is  true  that  the  high  priests  of  evolution  or  trans- 
formation are  not  at  one  as  to  some  of  the  details  of 
man's  genealogy.  Vogt  traces  our  pedigree  in  its 
earlier  stages  through  the  annelids  and  earth-worms. 
Hackel  demurs  to  this,  and  affirms  that  at  this  stage 
of  development  our  ancestors  were  ascidians  and  am- 
phioxi. 

But,  however  much  evolutionists  may  disagree  as  to 
details,  they  are  unanimous  in  asserting  the  animal 
origin  of  man.  To  bridge  over  the  chasm  between 
brute  and  organic  matter  they  invented  the  monera, 

"  History  of  Creation,  vol.  ii.  p.  337. 
15 


226  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

which  resulted  from  a  fortuitous  concourse  of  certain 
atoms  of  hydrogen,  oxygen,  carbon,  and  nitrogen. 
The  nearest  living  analogue  of  this  primitive  form 
of  protoplasm  is,  Hackel  assures  us,  the  ill-starred 
bathybiiis  of  Huxley.  To  bridge  over  the  chasm 
between  the  irrational  and  the  rational,  between  ani- 
mals and  man,  they  invented  the  anthropoid  or  the 
pithecanthrope,  the  speechless  man-ape,  of  which, 
like  so  many  other  links  in  Hackel' s  genealogical 
chain,  there  is  not  the  slightest  trace  in  geology  or 
palaeontology, 

Juvenal  ridiculed  the  credulity  of  those  who  believed 
that  Mount  Athos  was  sailed  through  of  )ore: 

.  .  .  creditur  olim 
Velificatus  Athos,  .  .  . 

but  how  much  more  deserving  of  the  satirist's  derision 
and  invective  are  the  fantastic  teachings  of  those  who 
declare  that  brute  matter  can  of  its  own  motion  bridge 
the  chasm  that  separates  it  from  sentient  and  conscious 
beings!  Truly,  "beyond  all  credulity  is  the  credu- 
lousness  of  atheists  who  believe  that  chance  could 
make  the  world,  when  it  cannot  build  a  house." 

But  the  theory  of  descent  advocated  by  the  evolu- 
tion school  of  science  requires  the  existence  of  these 
links,  and  we  are  told  to  look  to  the  future  for  their 
discovery.  This  is  about  as  satisfactory  as  Hackel's 
defence  of  spontaneous  generation,  which  is  one  of  the 
prerequisites  of  his  hypothesis.  Spontaneous  genera- 
tion, in  spite  of  the  crucial  experiments  of  Pasteur, 
is,  Hackel  assures  us,  still  going  on,  but  at  the  bot- 
tom of  the  deepest  oceans  and  in  other  places  to  which 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  227 

access  is  barred  to  the  investigator.  Similarly,  man, 
as  man,  as  well  as  the  all-important  missing  link — 
alahis — had  his  origin  in  Lemnria,  an  imaginary  con- 
tinent now  at  the  bottom  of  the  Indian  Ocean,  far  ont 
of  reach  of  the  modern  fossil-hnnter;  and  thus  we 
shall  for  ever  be  denied  the  privilege  of  looking  upon 
any  of  the  relics  of  our  venerable  ancestors  or  of  their 
immediate  progenitors,  a  race  of  catarrhine  apes  long 
since  extinct. 

Mark  Twain,  in  his  Innocents  Abroad^  laments  the 
absence  of  a  monument  to  the  memory  of  our  common 
ancestor,  Adam — something  that  the  world,  for  some 
unaccountable  reason,  seems  to  have  lost  sight  of  until 
its  attention  was  directed  to  the  matter  by  the  great 
American  humorist.  Hackel  seems  even  more  solici- 
tous about  the  memory  of  the  primitive  plasson — the 
Bathybius  Haeckelii — from  which,  he  will  have  it, 
humanity  is  descended.  According  to  the  professor 
of  Jena,  we  are  indeed  an  ignorant  and  ungrateful 
offspring. 

And  yet  these  advocates  of  the  animal  origin  of  man 
are  proud  of  the  favored  mud-fish  and  of  the  ambitious 
sea-squirt  to  which  they  trace  back  their  ancestry. 
This  is  not  a  libel  on  them,  because  they  take  pains 
to  inform  us  of  the  fact.  "It  is  better,"  .says  Clapa- 
rede,  "to  be  a  perfectionated  ape  than  a  degenerate 
Adam."  To  this  .sapient  utterance  of  the  Swiss  nat- 
uralist, Hackel,  Vogt,  Biichner,  and  their  disciples 
say  "Amen,"  and  all  further  discussion  is  pronounced 
impertinent. 


228  bible,  science,  and  faith. 

Scientific  Atheism. 

But  a  little  reflection  will  teach  us  that  the  IMonists 
or  Transformists,  whose  views  we  have  been  consider- 
ing, have  "  method  in  their  madness."  They  assume 
evolution,  in  the  sense  in  which  they  teach  it,  to  be 
true  and  to  rest  on  an  impregnable  basis  of  fact. 
They  assume  also  that  matter  is  eternal,  because 
science,  by  which  they  mean  physics,  can  tell  us 
nothing,  because  it  knows  nothing,  of  creation.  They 
pin  their  faith  to  spontaneous  generation  because  their 
theory  demands  it.  "If  we  do  not,"  says  Hackel, 
"accept  the  hypothesis  of  spontaneous  generation, 
then  at  this  one  point  in  the  history  of  development 
we  must  have  recourse  to  the  miracle  of  a  supernatural 
creation^  ^  But  this  is  something  that  cannot  for  a 
moment  be  admitted.  For  the  professor  of  Jena  con- 
tinues: "To  me  the  idea  that  the  Creator  should  have 
in  this  one  point  arbitrarily  interfered  with  the  regular 
process  of  development  of  matter,  which  in  all  other 
cases  proceeds  entirely  without  his  interference,  seems 
to  be  just  as  unsatisfactory  to  a  believing  mind  as  to  a 
scientific  intellect."  Carl  Vogt  endorses  these  views 
when  he  declares:  "There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Dar- 
win's theory  ignores  a  personal  Creator  and  his  direct 
interference  in  the  transformation  and  creation  of 
species,  there  being  no  sphere  of  action  for  such  a 
being."  The  notorious  French  Darwiness,  Madame 
Clemence  Royer,  proclaims  the  same  doctrines  with 
even  greater  crudeness  and  barbarity.  With  her,  cre- 
ation is  impossible,  contradictory,  unimaginable,  and 
the  Creator — the  "Absolute"  is  her  word — has  no  ex- 
'  Op.  cit.,  vol.  i.  p.  349. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN   RACE.  229 

istence,  but  is  simply  the  last  term  of  regression  of  an 
order  purely  logical,  which  does  not  correspond  to  any 
objective  reality.'  In  lieu  of  a  Creator,  Virchow  tells 
us  "the  process  of  life,  both  in  its  beginning  and  in 
its  repetition,  must  be  referred  to  a  special  kind  of 
mechanics."  For  we  must  understand  that  "at  a 
certain  period  of  the  earth's  evolution  unusual  con- 
ditions supervened;"  that  "a  thousand  circumstances, 
which  we  are  now  unable  to  produce,"  existed;  that 
under  such  conditions  and  under  such  circumstances 
certain  "elements,  entering  into  new  combinations, 
in  statu  nascente^  assumed  the  vital  movement,  and 
thus  the  ordinary  mechanical  conditions  were  formed 
into  vital  ones.^ 

But  the  truculent  Biichner,  impatient  of  such  euphe- 
mistic phraseology,  expresses  himself  more  bluntly, 
if  not  more  positively.  "  The  belief  in  God,"  he  tells 
us,  "is  a  creation  of  the  uneducated  human  mind," 
arising  "from  defective  knowledge  of  the  laws  of 
nature" — a  disposition  on  the  part  of  man  to  refer 
what  he  cannot  explain  in  a  natural  way  to  an  invisi- 
ble mysterious  cause.  "Science,"  he  affirms,  "  is  a 
continued  struggle  with  this  notion,  and  with  every 
step  she  makes  forward  she  drives  back  the  belief  in 
supernatural  forces,  or  the  need  of  such  belief,  into 
more  remote  and  untenable  positions.  Hence  every 
science,  and  especially  every  philosophy,  that  seeks 
reality  instead  of  appearance,  truth  instead  of  pre- 
tence, must  necessarily  be  atheistic^  otherwise  it  blocks 
up  against  itself  the  path  to  its  end,  the  truth.  As 
soon,  then,  as  in  a  philosophic  book  the  word  '  God ' 

'  Origine  de  V Homme  et  des  Societcs,  p.  6. 
*  Biichner  :  Force  afid  Matter,  pp.  176  et  seq. 


230  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

occurs,  except  in  criticism  or  reference,  one  may  con- 
fidently lay  it  aside  ;  in  it  will  found  nothing  capable 
of  promoting  the  real  progress  of  knowledge.  In 
properly  scientific  works  the  word  will  seldom  be  met 
with,  for  in  scientific  matters  the  word  '  God '  is  oiily 
another  expression  for  our  ignorance. ' '  '  Hence,  says 
the  blasphemous  Carl  Vogt,  "  we  must  dismiss  the 
Creator  without  ceremony,  and  not  leave  any  more 
the  least  place  for  the  action  of  such  a  being." 

Here,  as  in  the  preceding  chapter,  we  see  Rational- 
ism run  wild.  With  Strauss  and  his  school  it  issued 
in  Atheism  and  Nihilism;  with  the  leading  German 
Transformists  it  results  in  Monism  and  an  explanation 
of  the  universe  by  a  "special  system  of  mechanics." 

But  whether  the  subject  of  study  be  philosophy, 
theology,  science,  or  Sacred  Scripture,  the  object  of 
the  Rationalist  is  ever  the  same — to  minimize  the 
supernatural,  or  to  relegate  it,  as  the  outgrowth  of 
ignorance  and  superstition,  to  the  domain  of  myth  and 
fable.  Anything,  therefore,  that  refers  directly  or  indi- 
rectly to  God  or  religion;  anything  that  bears  on  the 
authenticity  of  the  Bible  or  the  integrity  of  Christian 
dogma;  anything  that  will  tend,  even  by  implication, 
whether  by  distortion  of  fact  or  suppression  of  the 
truth,  to  cast  discredit  on  the  traditional  teaching  of 
the  Church  or  shake  the  faith  of  her  children,  is 
eagerly  seized  on,  as  if  the  highest  act  of  virtue  and 
the  sole  end  of  science  were  to  banish  for  ever  from  the 
minds  of  men  the  very  idea  of  God. 

That  which  M.  Gustave  Flourens  wrote  the  scien- 
tists of  the  Monistic  school  imply,  if  they  do  not  ex- 
press it  in  words:   "Our  enemy  is  God!     Hatred  of 

'  Man  iti  the  Past,  Present,  and  Fiiture,  p.  329. 


THE  agp:  of  the  human  race.  231 

God  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom.     If  men  would  make 
progress,  it  must  be  on  the  basis  of  Atheism."  ' 

From  what  we  have  already  seen,  and  from  what  we 
shall  learn  in  the  sequel,  the  subject  of  the  antiquity 
of  man  is  one  that  has  been  particularly  grateful  to 
the  skeptics  and  the  scientific  Atheists  of  our  day. 
They  fancy  they  see  in  the  disproof  of  the  scriptural 
chronology  a  condemnation  of  the  traditional  teachings 
regarding  the  Adamic  origin  of  the  various  races  of 
the  human  family,  if  not  a  demonstration  of  the  falsity 
of  the  entire  Bible  as  a  divinely-inspired  record.  A 
certain  class  of  geologists,  and  prehistoric  archaeolo- 
gists especially,  have  taken  this  view  of  the  question, 
and  hence  have  bent  their  best  energies  to  show  that 
the  teachings  of  their  science  are  utterly  irreconcilable 
with  any  of  the  accepted  systems  of  biblical  chronol- 
ogy, and  would  now  have  us  believe  that  they  have  suc- 
ceeded without  peradventure  in  their  purpose.  They 
display  the  animus  that  actuates  them  in  their  investi- 
gations by  their  inability  to  refrain  from  giving  fre- 
quent expression  to  their  contempt  for  the  Inspired 
Record  and  for  those  beliefs  which  have  so  lonof  been 
the  solace  of  countless  millions  of  our  race.  This  is 
particularly  so  in  the  case  of  the  question  under  discus- 
sion. They  affect  to  be  surprised  that  any  one  en- 
dowed with  ordinary  reasoning  power  or  the  faculty 
of  weighing  the  si.nplest  kinds  of  evidence  should  any 
longer  find  anything  in  scriptural  chronology  to  claim 
his  assent  or  to  stand  in  the  way  of  his  unreserved 
acceptance  of  the  prevailing  teachings  of  the  evolu- 
tionary school  of  geology  and  anthropology  regarding 
the  age  of  human  kind. 

'  Quoted  by  W.  S.  Lilly  in  The  Great  Enigma,  p.  68. 


232  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH, 

I  have  been  thus  explicit  in  what  precedes  in  ex- 
hibiting the  character,  views,  and  methods  of  the 
modern  scientists,  from  whom  I  have  quoted  at  some 
length,  in  order  that  what  shall  follow  may  appear  in 
its  true  light,  and  in  order,  too,  that  the  reader  may 
appreciate  the  nature  of  the  pressure  that  is  brought  to 
bear  on  many  votaries  of  science  who  have  no  sym- 
pathy whatever  with  the  principles  of  the  Monistic  and 
Atheistic  school  which  we  have  been  considering.  With- 
out these  prefator}-  observations  it  would  be  impossible 
to  understand  the  attitude  of  contemporary  geologists 
and  archaeologists — of  those,  even,  who  make  profession 
of  Christianity  and  belief  in  the  Book  of  books  as  a 
divinely  inspired  record — regarding  the  question  of  the 
antiquity  of  man  in  its  connection  with  the  reputed 
teaching  of  the  Bible  on  the  subject. 

What,  then,  does  modern  science — and  by  this  term 
we  mean  conservative,  veritable  science,  and  not  wild 
hypothesis  and  fantastical  speculation — teach  concern- 
ing the  age  of  mankind?  What  answer  has  geology, 
and  that  newer  science,  prehistoric  archaeology,  to 
give  to  a  question  which  has  excited  such  interest 
and  received  such  attention  during  the  last  third,  we 
might  .say  during  the  last  half,  of  a  century?  What 
is  the  nature  of  the  evidence  offered  in  elucidation  of 
this  much-vexed  subject,  and  what  is  the  value  of  the 
testimony  by  which  the  case  is  to  be  adjudicated  ? 
What  kind  of  chronometers  do  geologists  and  archaeol- 
ogists employ?  Are  the>-  reliable,  or  are  they  utterly 
lacking  in  all  the  elements  of  certitude  ?  What  are 
the  criteria  by  which  we  are  asked  by  scientists  to  be 
guided  in  arriving  at  a  conclusion  respecting  this  all- 
important  problem,  and  are  they  of  such  a  character 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN    RACE.  233 

as  to  command  the  assent  of  one  whose  reason  tells 
him  that  he  mnst  be  governed  in  his  researches  by 
at  least  the  ordinary  laws  of  dialectics?     I^et  us  see. 

Tertiary  Man  and  Uniformitarianism. 

The  evidence  usually  adduced  in  support  of  the 
great  ar^tiquity  of  man  is  based  on  observed  geolog- 
ical and  geographical  changes,  on  changes  in  climate, 
on  changes  in  the  fauna,  and  on  changes  in  the  objects 
and  implements  of  human  industry,  which  have  taken 
place  since  man's  appearance  on  earth. 

One  of  the  indisputable  facts,  it  cannot  be  gainsaid, 
of  geologic  science  is  the  fact  of  the  very  recent  origin 
of  our  race.  Man,  according  to  the  almost  universal 
teaching  of  geologists  and  archaeologists,  did  not  ap- 
pear before  the  opening  of  the  Quaternary  Age.  But 
this  age,  whatever  may  have  been  its  duration  in  years, 
is  conceded  on  all  hands  to  have  been  incomparably 
shorter  than  the  various  ages  that  preceded  it. 

Some  decades  ago,  it  was  thought  by  many — among 
them  by  the  learned  French  archaeologists  Abbe  Bour- 
geois and  Abbe  Delaunay — that  men  existed  during  the 
Tertiary  Age.  Thence  the  long  and  heated  discussions 
about  Tertiary  man,  who,  a  few  years  ago,  occupied 
such  a  prominent  place  in  periodical  literature.  The 
question  has  lost  the  interest  which  it  formerly  pos- 
\  sessed,  although  there  are  not  wanting,  even  now, 
prominent  men  of  science  who  believe,  or  affect  to 
believe,  in  the  existence  of  Tertiary  man.  The 
evidence,  however,  in  support  of  the  theory  that 
man  existed  before  the  Quaternary  Age  is  so  slight 
and  inconclusive  that  even  those  whose  preconceived 


234  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

notions  would  incline  them  to  favor  the  theor}^  of 
Tertiary  man  are  forced  to  declare  that  we  must  await 
further  light  on  the  subject  before  a  final  decision  is 
warranted. 

But  truth  is,  the  deathblow  to  Tertiary  man,  at  least 
in  France,  was  dealt  by  the  Scientific  Congress  held  at 
Blois  in  1884.  At  the  conclusion  of  a  long  and  heated 
debate,  and  after  a  visit  to  Thenay,  where  Abbe  Bour- 
geois had  discovered  in  1863  his  alleged  relics  of  Ter- 
tiary man,  and  a  thorough  examination  of  the  flint- 
flakes  that  had  been  imagined  to  be  of  human  handi- 
work, the  section  of  anthropology,  composed  of  forty 
members,  declared,  with  only  one  dissenting  voice,  that 
the  proofs  in  support  of  the  learned  abbe's  theory  were 
entirely  inadequate.  It  is  true  that  even  after  this 
M.  Mortillet  insisted  that  if  the  flints  of  Thenay  were 
not  the  products  of  human  industry,  they  were  at  least 
the  work  of  some  intelligent  creature.  So  convinced 
is  he  of  this  that  he  does  not  hesitate  to  ascribe  them 
to  an  imaginary  being  whom  he  burdens  with  the  name 
of  Anthropopitheciis^  who,  he  will  have  it,  was  man's 
immediate  predecessor  and  the  missing  link  for  which 
geologists  and  archaeologists  have  so  long  been  seek- 
ing. But  M.  de  Mortillet,  if  not  alone  with  his  anthro- 
popithecns^  has  but  a  small  following,  for,  as  far  as  any 
evidence  goes,  his  pretended  precursor  of  man  is  fully 
as  mythical  as  Tertiary  man  himself.' 

'  Cf.  Appendix  by  H.  W.  Haynes,  in  Wright's  Man  and 
the  Glacial  Period;  "La  Question  de  1' Homme  Tertiaire,"  by 
Abbe  Bourgeois,  in  the  Revue  des  Oues/io?is  scientifiques,  1877  : 
"  L'Homme  Tertiaire,"  in  the  same  Revue,  January.  1889,  by 
M.  Arcelin.  See  also  "  L'Homme  Tertiaire,"  in  the  Dictionnaire 
apologetique  de  la  Foi  catholique,  per  Abbe  Jaugey,  and  chap. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN    RACE.  235 

But  if  man  did  not  live  during  the  Tertiary  Age,  it 
is  quite  certain  that  he  was  contemporary  with  many 
species  of  animals  that  are  long  since  extinct.  He 
therefore  existed  during  one  of  the  geological  peri- 
ods, properly  so  called — the  Quaternary — because  the 
Recent  Period,  as  understood  by  geologists,  was  not 
ushered  in  until  the  disappearance  of  the  animals  now 
found  in  a  fossil  state.  In  this  connection  it  may  be 
observed  that  a  fossil,  in  scientific  terminology,  is  any 
organic  body  buried  in  the  earth  at  a  period  preceding 
the  so-called  Recent  Period,  in  which  we  now  live. 
But  the  existence  of  men  during  the  Quaternary 
Age  does  not,  as  has  been  so  often  stated,  presuppose 
for  him  a  greater  antiquity  than  is  consistent  with  a 
legitimate  deduction  from  the  chronological  facts  of 
Scripture.  The  truth  of  this  statement  will  appear 
as  we  proceed. 

Among  the  geological  and  geographical  evidences 
advanced  in  support  of  man's  great  antiquity  are  those 
supposed  to  be  afforded  by  alluvial  deposits,  peat-bogs, 
stalagmitic  formations,  and  by  oscillations  of  the  earth's 
surface. 

In  various  parts  of  Europe  and  America,  not  to 
speak  of  other  portions  of  the  globe,  relics  of  man 
and  of  human  industry  have  been  found  entombed  at 
various  depths   in    layers   of   clay,    sand,    and   gravel 

ii.  of  Abbe  Hamard'.s  admirable  work,  D Age  de  la  Pierre  et 
V Homme primitif.  So  late  as  August,  1892,  in  an  address  before 
the  Congress  of  Anthropologists  in  Moscow.  Professor  Virchow 
boldly  declared:  "Jamais  personne  n'a  trouve,  dans  les  conches 
vierges  d'un  terrain  tertiaire,  quelque  niorceau  de  silex  qui  ait 
6te  reconnu  par  le  monde  savant  comme  un  vestige  irrecus- 
able de  I'existence  de  I'homme." 


236  BIBLE,  SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

which  have  been  deposited  by  flowing  water.  In 
deposits  made  by  rivers  and  streams  it  has  been  con- 
tended— and,  at  first  sight,  quite  naturally — that  all 
that  was  necessary  to  determine  the  age  of  human 
remains  in  fluviatile  detritus  was  to  find  the  averaee 
rate  of  deposition  per  annum.  Thus  if  an  arrowhead 
or  a  stone  hatchet  were  to  be  found  in  an  argillaceous 
stratum  at  the  depth  of  five  feet,  and  it  were  known 
from  a  number  of  observations  that  the  mean  annual 
rate  of  sedimentary  accumulation  was  one  inch  per 
annum,  the  inference  would  at  once  be  drawn  that 
such  implements  were  left  in  the  place  where  the\' 
were  found  sixty  years  ago.  Such  reasoning  would 
be  perfectly  just  if  we  could  be  certain  that  the  same 
conditions  obtained  throughout  the  entire  sixty  years 
as  during  the  period  of  observation.' 

If  there  were  a  question  of  only  sixty  years,  as  in 
the  instance  given,  there  might  not  be  much  room  for 
doubt.  When,  however,  there  are  thousands  and  tens 
of  thousands  of  years  to  be  considered,  the  case  assumes 
a  new  phase.  Then  the  Uniform itarianism,  of  which 
Sir  Charles  Lyell  was  such  an  ardent  champion,  makes 
greater  demands  for  our  acceptance  than  the  known 
facts  of  geology  and  physical  geography  will  justify. 
For  we  know  as  a  fact  tli^t  the  rate  of  fluvial  deposition 

'  So  difficult,  indeed,  is  it  to  make  any  calculations  worthy 
of  acceptance  regarding  the  rule  of  fluviatile  deposits  that  a 
distinguished  scientist,  in  referring  to  the  chronological  sup- 
putations  based  on  the  monuments  buried  in  the  vallej'  of  the 
Nile,  does  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  a  "  Fellah  who  makes  a 
dam  around  the  lower  end  of  his  field  can  in  one  year  intro- 
duce a  few  thousand  years  into  the  cleverest  calculations  of  a 
European  savant." 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN   RACE.  237 

is  far  from  being  the  same  in  different  times  and  places 
— that  in  France,  for  instance,  it  was  far  greater 
during  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era  than  it 
has  been  at  subsequent  periods.  This  is  demonstrated 
so  plainly,  both  by  history  and  archaeology,  that  it  is 
incontestable.' 

To  give  but  a  single  case:  the  waters  of  the  Somme, 
according  to  M.  de  Mercy,  who  made  a  special  study 

^  Regarding  "the  dwarfing  influence  of  Uniformitarianism," 
the  regulating  of  everything  "  by  a  martinet  measure  of  time 
and  change,"  Professor  Prestuich,  the  Nestor  of  English  geol- 
ogists, whose  knowledge  and  judgment  no  one  can  suspect, 
writes  as  follows:  "We  trust  we  have  now  said  enough  to 
show  upon  how  insecure  a  basis  the  Uniformitarian  measures 
of  time  and  change  stand.  They  have  probably  done  more  to 
impede  the  exercise  of  free  quiry  and  discussion  than  any 
of  the  catastrophic  theories  which  formerly  prevailed.  The 
latter  found  their  own  cure  in  the  more  accurate  observation 
of  geological  phenomena  and  the  progress  of  the  collateral 
sciences;  but  the  former  hedge  us  in  by  dogmas  which  forbid 
any  interpretation  of  the  phenomena  other  than  that  of  fixed 
rules  which  are  more  worthy  of  the  sixteenth  than  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  Instead  of  weighing  the  evidence  and 
following  up  the  consequences  that  ensue  from  the  assump- 
tion, too  many  attempts  have  been  made — not  unnaturally  by 
those  who  hold  this  faith — to  adjust  the  evidence  to  the 
assumption.  The  result  has  been  strained  interpretations 
framed  to  meet  one  point,  but  without  sufficient  regard  for 
the  others.  We  repeat  that  we  would  not  for  a  moment  con- 
tend that  the  process  of  erosion,  the  modes  of  sedimentation, 
and  the  methods  of  motion  are  not  the  same  in  kind  as 
they  nave  ever  been;  but  we  can  never  admit  that  they  have 
always  been  the  same  in  degree.  The  physical  laws  are  per- 
manent, but  the  effects  are  conditional  and  changing  in  accord- 
ance with  the  conditions  under  which  the  laws  are  exhibited." 
—  The  Position  of  Geology,  in  the  Nirieteenth  Centuv}'  for  Oct., 
1893.     Cf  also  Preface  to  Howorth's  Majnmoth  and  the  Flood. 


238  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

of  this  river,  were  during  the  Roman  period  fully  fifty 
times  as  abundant  as  they  are  now.  During  the  Qua- 
ternary Age  the  deposition  of  alluvium  must  have 
been  far  more  rapid  than  at  any  time  since.  In  con- 
sequence of  the  great  humidity  of  the  atmosphere, 
the  precipitation  was  then  ten  or  twenty  times  as 
abundant  as  it  is  at  present.'  Indeed,  so  exceptionally 
active  during  the  Quaternary  Period  were  the  agents 
of  erosion  and  transportation  that  nothing  which  we 
may  now  witness  can  give  us  an  adequate  idea  of  their 
power  and  violence  unless  it  is  an  occasional  torrential 
storm  in  the  tropics  or  a  destructive  cloud-burst  in  the 
mountains.  For  this  reason  alone,  not  to  speak  of 
others,  we  can  declare  with  certainty  that  none  of  the 
remains  of  man  thus  far  discovered  in  the  alluvium  of 
either  Europe  or  America  can  be  produced  as  proof 
that  the  age  of  the  human  race  is  other  than  that 
which  is  indicated  by  the  chronology  of  the  Sacred 
Record. 

The  peat-beds  of  the  Old  and  New  Worlds  have 
likewise  been  appealed  to  as  chronometers  for  settling 
the  question  of  the  age  of  man,  at  least  in  the  locali- 
ties which  have  yielded  undoubted  human  remains. 

But  here,  as  in  the  case  of  alluvial  deposits,  we  are 
confronted  with  a  fundamental  difficulty — that  of 
estimating  the  growth  of  peat-formations.  The  most 
divergent  results  have  been  arrived  at  by  different 
investigators,  varying  greatly  according  to  the  locali- 
ties studied. 

According  to  Lyell,  the  rate  of  growth  of  peat  is 
of  extreme  slowness.  M.  Boucher  de  Perthes,  as  the 
result  of  his  investigations,    came  to  the  conclusion 

^  De  Ivapparent,  Trade  de  Geologie,  p.  1283. 


THE   AGE  OF   THE    HUMAN    RACE.  239 

that  it  was  not  more  than  four  centimetres  per  century. 
Having  found  in  the  Sonime  Valley  specimens  of 
Roman  pottery  sixty  centimetres  below  the  surface 
of  a  peat-bed  eight  metres  in  depth,  he  calculated 
that  the  time  required  for  the  formation  of  the  peat, 
assuming  that  the  pottery  was  fifteen  hundred  years 
old,  was  no  less  than  twenty  thousand  years.  The 
error  in  the  computation  was  in  assuming  that  it 
required  fifteen  hundred  years  for  the  growth  of  the 
peat  overlying  the  pottery.  The  time  demanded  may 
have  been,  and  undoubtedly  was,  far  less  than  this. 
From  what  we  know  regarding  the  rate  of  peat-for- 
mation in  other  places,  there  is  no  reason  for  believing 
that  the  time  actually  consumed  in  the  growth  of  the 
peat  above  the  pottery  was  more  than  two  or  three 
centuries  at  most.  Boucher  de  Perthes  assumes  as 
known  what  in  reality  is  a  totally  unknown  quantity, 
and  hence  his  supputations  are  vitiated  and  count  for 
naught. 

In  America,  according  to  Andrews,  peat  is  formed 
at  the  rate  of  twenty  to  twenty-five  inches  per  century 
— from  twelve  to  fifteen  times  as  rapidly  as  was  imag- 
ined by  Boucher  de  Perthes.     In  Ireland  it  has  been 
1  known  to  grow  at  the  rate  of  two  inches  per  annum — 
\  more  in  one  year  than  the  French  savant  allowed  for 
la  hundred.     In  view  of  these  and  other  facts  of  sim- 
ilar import,  M.  Rioult  de  Neuville,  an  acknowledged 
authority  on  the  subject,  does  not  hesitate  to  assert: 
"It  seems  proven  that  under  favorable  circumstances 
the    thickest    peat-bogs   may   have   formed   within    a 
period  of  time  not  exceeding  one  or  two  centuries, 
and  in  those  places  even  where  in  our  day,  for  lack 
of  the  conditions  essential  to  its  development,  it  is  no 


240  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

longer  produced."  For  this  reason,  therefore,  we  are 
fully  warranted  in  rejecting  entirely  the  exaggerated 
statements  of  Lyell  and  others  regarding  the  length 
of  time  required  for  the  growth  of  peat,  and  substi- 
tuting hundreds  for  the  thousands  of  years  their  cal- 
culations demand.  Even  geologically  speaking,  peat 
is  of  very  recent  origin,  and  it  is  quite  futile  to  attempt 
to  deduce  from  any  human  relics  found  in  it  an  argu- 
ment for  the  great  antiquity  of  man  or  against  the 
biblical  chronology. 

In  the  stalagmitic  deposits  of  certain  caves,  especially 
in  Europe,  have  been  found  human  remains  associated 
with  those  of  animals  now  extinct.  These  relics  have 
long  been  thought  to  indicate  a  great  antiquity  for  our 
race,  but  the  reasoning  by  which  this  conclusion  is 
arrived  at  is  fallacious,  for  two  reasons:  First,  because 
it  assumes  that  the  extinct  animals,  whose  fossil  remains 
are  found  alongside  those  of  man,  existed  at  a  much 
earlier  period  than  the  facts  of  the  case  will  allow. 
Secondly,  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  the  rate  of  de- 
posit of  stalagmites  in  the  caves  in  question  was  much 
slower  than  is  known  to  be  the  case  elsewhere  where 
the  conditions  are  not  dissimilar.  The  truth  is,  we 
encounter  the  same  difficulty  here  as  in  our  attempts 
to  measure  time  by  the  deposition  of  alluvium  or  the 
growth  of  peat.  Thus,  according  to  one  author,  a 
million  years  was  required  for  the  deposition  of  the 
carbonate  of  lime  on  the  floor  of  the  celebrated  Kent 
cavern  in  England,  while  according  to  another  au- 
thority, equally  competeht  to  give  an  opinion  on  the 
subject,  a  period  of  a  thousand  years  was  all  that  was 
necessary. 

As  in  the  case  of  alluvial  deposits,    there  is  every 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  24 1 

reason  to  believe  that  the  rate  of  formation  of  stalae- 
mites  during  the  Quaternary  Age  was  much  more  rapid 
than  it  is  at  present.  There  was  then  more  moisture 
in  the  atmosphere,  and  consequently  a  greater  abun- 
dance of  water  percolating  through  the  limestone  for- 
mations in  which  the  caves  are  found.  The  natural 
result  under  such  conditions  would  be  that  quite  thick 
deposits  of  calcareous  matter  would  be  formed  in  a 
comparatively  short  time.  Visitors  to  the  Yellowstone 
National  Park  know  how  rapidly,  at  the  Mammoth 
Hot  Springs  for  instance,  calcareous  and  siliceous 
deposits  are  made.  Objects  placed  in  these  waters  are 
heavily  incrusted  in  a  few  days.  The  conditions  here 
are,  it  is  true,  exceptionally  favorable,  but  it  would  be 
rash  to  assert  that  they  were  not  equally  favorable  in 
some  of  the  caves  in  which  human  remains  have  been 
found,  and  which  belong  to  the  Quaternary  or  even  to 
the  Recent  Period. 

For  this  and  other  reasons  we  may  declare  with  De 
Lapparent  that  there  is  no  foundation  whatever  for 
"  generously  distributing  among  the  different  phases 
of  the  Quaternary  Epoch  the  hundreds  and  thousands 
of  centuries,"  as  has  so  long  been  the  vogue  of  a  cer- 
tain school  of  geologists.  And,  contrary  to  the  find- 
ings of  this  same  school  of  geologists,  I  am  unable  to 
see  in  any  of  the  fossil  cave-men  or  other  human 
remains  found  in  the  caverns  of  Europe  any  evidence 
whatever  for  that  fabulous  antiquity  of  the  human  race 
that  has  so  often  been  claimed  for  it.  Nothing,  to  my 
mind,  has  yet  been  discovered  in  any  of  the  caves  that 
in  the  slightest  degree  tells  against  the  teachings  of 
scriptural  chronology  regarding  the  age  of  our  race. 
We  may  concede  to  the  remains  of  man  found  in  the 

16 


242  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

drift,  in  caves,  and  peat-bogs  an  antiquity  of  three  or 
four  thousand  years,  but,  so  far,  we  have  no  irrefrag- 
able evidence  of  such  antiquity.  We  may  admit  even 
that  cave-men — troglodytes  they  have  been  called — 
existed  in  Europe  three  or  four  thousand  years  before 
Christ,  and  still  they  would  have  been  posterior,  ac- 
cording to  a  chronology  that  we  may  accept,  by  a  thou- 
sand years  to  colonies  established  by  the  descendants 
of  the  patriarchs  along  the  valleys  of  the  Nile,  the 
Tigris,  and  the  Euphrates,  and  probably  also  along 
those  of  the  Ganges,  the  Indus,  and  the  Brahmapootra. 
For  the  sake  of  argument  we  may  go  yet  farther. 
If  the  evidence  from  science  were  forthcoming,  I 
should  have  no  hesitation  in  believing  that  parts  of 
Europe  were  inhabited  in  antediluvian  times.  Indeed, 
the  science  of  linguistics  and  the  existence  of  the 
Basques  and  Finns,  who  have  no  connection  with  the 
great  Japhetite  or  Aryan  branch  of  the  human  family, 
seem  to  point  to  prediluvial  migrations  that  may  have 
antedated  the  Christian  era  six  or  seven  thousand 
years.  But  until  geologists  and  archaeologists  shall 
have  produced  much  stronger  evidence  than  anything 
that  has  yet  been  offered  regarding  the  age  of  man  in 
Europe,  we  may  feel  that  there  is  little  difficulty  in 
reconciling:  the  age  of  human  remains  found  in  the 
peat-beds,  caverns,  and  gravel-pits  with  the  chronology 
of  the  Bible  as  it  is  usually  given  for  post-diluvial,  not 
to  speak  of  antediluvian,  times. 

Cataclysmic  Action. 

Certain  oscillations  of  the  earth's  crust,  which  have 
notably  affected  the  contour  of  the  surface  of  the  globe, 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  243 

which  are  assumed — or,  it  may  be,  which  are  known — 
to  have  occnrred  since  the  advent  of  man,  have  fre- 
qnently  been  signalized  as  argnments  in  favor  of  a 
greater  than  biblical  antiqnity  of  man.  Bnt  here,  as 
in  the  other  instances  which  we  have  considered,  the 
flaw  in  the  argnment  consists  in  taking  for  granted  the 
validity  of  Lyell's  Uniformitarian  theory,  and  in  con- 
sidering as  a  known  that  which  is  positively  an 
nnknown,  and  in  the  most  cases  an  indeterminable, 
quantity.  All  cataclysmic  action  is  denied,  and  this 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  we  have  numerous  striking 
evidences  of  its  reality  within  historic  times,  not  to 
consider  those  that  obviously  pertain  to  the  domain  of 
prehistory. 

The  coast-line  of  various  parts  of  the  world,  as  the 
reader  is  aware,  is  continually  changing  by  reason  of 
the  elevations  and  subsidences  of  the  earth's  crust 
which  are  always  in  progress.  In  consequence  of 
these  oscillations  the  sea  at  some  places  encroaches  on 
the  land,  while  at  others  the  land  rises  from  the  sea. 
For  this  reason  the  coast-line  of  France  is  quite  differ- 
ent from  what  it  was  in  the  time  of  Caesar,  and  for  this 
reason  too  the  topography  of  certain  parts  of  Southern 
England  is  quite  changed  from  what  it  is  known  to 
have  been  a  few  centuries  before  the  Christian  era. 
According  to  Diodorus  Siculus,  the  Phoenicians  who 
voyaged  to  Cornwall  for  tin  were  able  at  low  tide  to 
transport  the  metal  to  the  Isle  of  Wight  dry-shod. 
Such  a  thing,  as  every  one  knows,  would  now  be  very 
far  from  possible.  There  is  no  doubt,  moreover,  that 
the  British  Isles  were  formerly  connected  with  the  con- 
tinent of  Europe,  and  probably,  too,  only  a  few  cen- 
turies before  the  intrepid  navigators  of  Tyre  and  Sidon 


244  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

betook  themselves  to  the  far-off  Cassiterides  in  quest 
of  tin — that  all-important  constituent  of  bronze — which 
in  their  time  was  known  to  exist  in  large  quantities 
only  in  this  Ultittia  Tliule  of  the  then  known  world.  ^ 

Lyell,  basing  his  conclusions  on  observations  made 
along  the  coast  of  Sweden,  thinks  that  the  rate  of  ele- 
vation of  land  does  not  amount  to  more  than  two  or 
three  feet  in  a  century.^  Here  again,  true  to  his 
Uniformitarian  theory,  he  assumes  that  the  rate  of 
upheaval  is  regular  and,  in  the  long  run,  practically 
the  same  in  all  parts  of  the  earth's  surface.  But  such 
an  assumption  is  demonstrably  false.  Not  only  is 
there  a  variation  in  time,  but  also  a  variation  in  places 
quite  contiguous. 

To  cite  but  one  instance  from  among  many  similar 
ones  that  might  be  adduced  illustrating  the  nature  of 
the  argument  based  on  oscillations  of  the  earth's  crust 
which  are  assumed  to  have  taken  place  since  the 
appearance   of  man,  shall  give   a  typical    case,  often 

•  Wilkinson  suo^gests  that  the  Egyptians  may  have  obtained 
tin  from  India  or  Spain  long  previously  to  this  period.  There 
does  not,  however,  seem  to  be  any  evidence  that  the  Phoeni- 
cians had  any  knowledge  of  the  mines  of  India,  while  those  of 
Spain,  even  if  worked,  would  have  supplied  only  a  small  frac- 
tion of  the  metal  they  actually  used.  Speaking  of  the  bronze 
used  by  the  Chaldeans  and  Egyptians  in  the  earliest  periods 
of  their  history,  the  Marquis  de  Nadaillac  thinks  that  we  must 
admit  either  "  I'exploitation  des  mines  dont  toute  trace  est 
perdue,"  or  the  importation  of  tin  from  England  or  Malacca. 
Owing  to  the  imperfect  knowledge  of  navigation  at  the  time, 
he  regards  its  importation  from  England  as  impossible.  Even 
its  transport  from  India  he  considers  "  une  h^-pothe-se  bien 
os^e." 

^  Antiquity  of  Mail,  p.  58,  and  Principles  of  Geology,  chap. 
xxxi. 


THE  AGE  OF  THE   HUMAN  RACE.  245 

referred  to,  wliich  was  brought  to  light  in  Sardinia. 
Here,  at  an  elevation  of  about  ninety  metres  above  the 
sea-level,  products  of  human  industry  were  found  in 
deposits  of  undoubted  marine  origin.  Assuming  that 
the  rate  of  upheaval  was  one  metre  a  century,  the  con- 
clusion was  that  man  lived  in  Sardinia  full  nine  thou- 
sand years  ago.  The  calculation,  however,  was  nulli- 
fied, not  only  by  the  assumption  of  a  regular  rate  of 
elevation  of  the  land,  but  by  the  assumption  of  regu- 
larity of  movement  in  a  part  of  the  world  where  earth- 
quakes and  other  cataclysmic  actions  are  of  frequent 
occurrence.  But  this  is  not  the  most  serious  objection 
urged  against  the  computations  based  on  the  remains 
here  found.  It  was  discovered  on  a  more  careful  ex- 
amination that  the  accumulations  of  marine  shells, 
pottery,  etc.  at  the  height  stated  were  not  necessarily 
any  evidence  whatever  of  upheaval.  On  the  contrary, 
there  are  now  the  strongest  reasons  for  supposing  that 
these  deposits  are  similar  to  the  shell-mounds  or 
kitchen-middings  of  Denmark,  and  that  they  may 
originally  have  been  at  the  same  altitudes  above  sea- 
level  as  they  are  at  present. 

The  cataclysmic  causes  of  upheaval  and  subsidence 
are  indeed  of  much  more  frequent  occurrence  and 
affect  much  greater  areas  of  the  earth's  surface  than 
the  Uniformitarian  school  of  geology  would  have  us 
believe.  As  cases  in  point  it  will  be  sufficient  to  recall 
instances  with  which  every  one  is  familiar,  and  which 
do  not  date  back  more  than  a  few  years — of  islands 
suddenly  rising  from  the  bed  of  the  ocean,  and  as 
quickly  disappearing;  of  earthquakes  whose  effects 
embraced  areas  of  hundreds,  and  often  of  thousands, 
of  square  miles;   of  volcanoes  whose  eruptions  occa- 


246  BIBLE,  SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

sioned  untold  losses  of  life  and  property.  As  special 
instances  of  an  earlier  date  may  signalize  the  ele- 
vation of  a  considerable  part  of  New  Zealand  during 
the  night  of  the  23d  of  January,  1855,  and  the  uplift- 
ing in  Chili  in  1822  of  fully  two  hundred  thousand 
square  miles  of  territory  between  the  Andes  and  the 
coast  to  a  height  of  from  two  to  seven  feet;  of  the 
memorable  earthquake  at  Lisbon  in  1775,  whereby  no 
fewer  than  sixty  thousand  persons  perished  in  the  space 
of  six  minutes,  and  whereby  a  large  portion  of  the  city 
was  permanently  engulfed  six  hundred  feet  beneath  the 
waters  of  the  bay,  and  of  the  still  more  destructive 
earthquake  that  visited  Calabria  in  1783,  which  occa- 
sioned the  death  of  one  hundred  thousand  persons  and 
was  felt  throughout  the  greater  portion  of  Europe. 

If  such  sudden  and  extensive  changes  in  the  con- 
figuration of  the  earth's  surface  have  taken  place 
during  the  short  period  of  time  of  which  we  have  a 
record,  how  many  other,  and  even  greater,  changes 
may  not  have  occurred  in  times  prehistoric?  And  if 
we  have  such  evidence  of  catastrophic  action  during 
the  Recent  Period,  which  all  authorities  admit  to  be 
one  of  remarkable  quiescence,  geologically  speaking, 
what  may  we  not  believe  of  the  period  immediately 
preceding — the  Quaternary — which  affords  so  many 
indications,  especially  toward  its  close,  of  having  wit- 
nessed oscillations  and  disturbances  by  the  side  of 
which  all  subsequent  changes  were  comparatively 
insignificant?  The  wonder,  then,  is  not  that  the  sur- 
face has  undergone  so  many  and  so  violent  mutations 
since  the  advent  of  man,  but  rather  that  the  revolu- 
tions experienced  have  been  so  few.  Certain  it  is  that 
far  from  being  an  argument  for  the  great  antiquity  of 


THE  AGE  OF  THE   HUMAN   RACE.  247 

the  race,  the  changes  referred  to  rather  corroborate  the 
view  of  those  who  think  that  five  thousand  or  six 
thousand  years  are  amply  sufficient  to  explain  all  the 
vestiges  of  prehistoric  man,  not  only  in  America,  but 
also  in  Europe. 

The  Ice  Age. 

We  come  now  to  a  more  interesting  phase  of  our 
subject — the  argument  for  the  antiquity  of  man  that 
is  based  on  the  changes  of  climate  that  are  supposed 
to  have  supervened  since  his  appearance  on  our  planet. 
To  do  justice  to  this  part  of  the  discussion  would  re- 
quire a  special  chapter,  or  more  truthfully  a  special 
treatise;  hence  we  must  be  satisfied  with  merely  indi- 
cating a  few  of  the  reasons  that  have  connected  the 
age  of  our  species  with  climatic  changes. 

The  whole  argument  hinges  on  the  celebrated  gla- 
cial theory,  about  which  so  much  has  been  written, 
but  regarding  which  so  little  has  been  definitely  ascer- 
tained. Men  of  science  are  not  yet  agreed  as  to  the 
cause  of  the  Ice  Age,  still  less  are  they  able  to  tell 
us  how  long  it  prevailed.  More  than  this,  those 
who  have  studied  the  matter  most  carefully  are  yet 
undecided  as  to  whether  there  was  one  or  several  gla- 
cial periods.  The  opinions  held  by  individual  inves- 
tigators depend  entirely  on  the  point  of  view  which 
is  taken  or  on  some  preconceived  notion  which  has 
been  raised  to  the  dignity  of  a  legitimate  working 
hypothesis. 

The  theories  that  have  been  brought  to  bear  on  the 
subject  may  be  divided  into  two  classes — cosmical  and 
terrestrial  or  astronomical  and  geological;  and  of  these 


24S  BIBLE,  SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

there  are  nearly  a  dozen,  all  having  able  advocates  and 
all  claiming  recognition. 

It  is  an  indisputable  fact  that  there  has  been  since 
the  close  of  the  Tertiary  Period,  and  probably  since 
the  apparition  of  man,  what  has  been  called  a  Glacial 
Period  or  an  Ice  Age.  If  man  did  not  witness  the 
beginning  of  this  period  of  low  temperature  and  ex- 
tensive glaciers  and  ice-sheets,  it  seems  certain,  as  all 
geologists  and  archaeologists  acknowledge,  that  he 
lived  during  a  portion,  probably  the  greater  portion, 
of  the  period.  The  interesting  part  of  the  problem,  so 
far  as  it  concerns  our  present  subject,  is  to  determine 
just  when  the  Ice  Age  began  and  how  long  it  endured. 

According  to  the  theory  so  ably  advocated  by  L)'ell 
in  his  Principles  of  Geology^  the  growth  and  distribu- 
tion of  glaciers  are  to  be  attributed  to  the  changes  in 
the  distribution  of  land  and  water  over  the  earth's  sur- 
face. As  these  changes  must  have  been  very  great  to 
produce  the  glaciation  we  know  to  have  existed,  and 
as  mutations  of  this  character  must,  according  to  the 
distinguished  English  geologist,  have  taken  place  with 
extreme  slowness,  we  are  asked  to  believe  that  the  in- 
ception of  the  Reign  of  Ice  dated  back  several  hundred 
thousand  years  at  least.  Glacialists  like  James  and 
Archibald  Geike  tell  us  that  great  areas  of  Europe 
and  North  America  were  then  "drowned  in  a  wide- 
spread nier  de glace^''''  attaining  in  Norway  a  thickness 
of  six  or  seven  thousand  feet,'  and  giving  rise,  when 
sent  adrift  into  the  waters  of  the  Atlantic,  to  "whole 
argosies  of  icebergs,"  in  comparison  with  which  those 
now  furnished  by  the  ice-seas  of  Alaska  and  Green- 
land sink  into  insignificance. 

^  A.  Geike,  Text-Book  oj  Geology,  p.  890. 


THE  AGE  OF  THE   HUMAN   RACE.  249 

Croll,  adopting  the  astronomical  theory  of  Adhemar, 
attempts  to  fix  exactly  the  number  of  years  that  have 
elapsed  since  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  last  Ice 
Age.  An  estimate  of  this  kind  based  on  Lyell's  the- 
ory is  impossible,  both  by  reason  of  the  complexity  of 
the  problem  from  a  geological  standpoint,  and  because 
of  the  utter  absence  of  any  reliable  chronometer. 
/  According  to  the  astronomical  theory,  of  which 
/  Croll,  James  Geike,  and  Sir  Robert  Ball  are  the  chief 
English  exponents,  the  cause  of  the  Ice  Age — or  rather 
of  the  ice  ages,  because  the  theory  supposes  a  succes- 
sion or  "groups"  of  them,  to  use  Ball's  term^ — is  to 
be  sought  in  the  climatic  changes  due  to,  the  preces- 
sion of  the  equinoxes  and  to  the  variations  in  the 
eccentricity  of  the  earth's  orbit.  To  this  may  also  be 
added,  as  a  less  potent  factor,  the  variations  in  the 
obliquity  of  the  ecliptic.  Thanks  to  the  investiga- 
tions of  Leverrier,  Poisson,  Lagrange,  and  other 
-  eminent  mathematicians,  astronomers  are  able  to 
compute  with  great  accuracy  the  periods  of  these 
variations  both  for  past  and  future  time. 

The  precession  of  the  equinoxes,  which  gradually 
alters  the  relative  lengths  of  winter  and  summer,  has 
a  period  of  twenty-one  thousand  years.  According 
to  the  theory  which  ascribes  glaciation  to  the  preces- 
sion of  the  equinoxes  alone,  there  should  be  alter- 
nately, in  the  northern  and  southern  hemispheres, 
an  ice  age  every  ten  thousand  five  hundred  years. 
Geologists  most  competent  to  interpret  the  facts  of 
their  science  deny  the  existence  of  such  a  series  of 
glacial  periods,  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  are 
not  warranted  by  any  evidence  so  far  produced. 

^  The  Cause  of  an  Ice  Age,  chap.  viii. 


250  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

Croll,  with  whom  Lyell  and  Lubbock  substantially 
agree,  seeks  the  cause  of  the  Ice  Age  in  the  greater 
secular  change  occasioned  by  the  variation  of  the 
eccentricity  of  the  earth's  orbit.  This  change,  like 
the  precession  of  the  equinoxes,  causes  a  difference 
in  the  relative  lengths  of  summer  and  winter,  but  the 
difference  due  to  variations  of  eccentricity  are  much 
greater  than  is  possible  by  any  change  in  the  position 
of  the  line  of  equinoxes.  At  present  the  difference  is 
only  seven  days,  the  summer  being  that  much  longer 
than  the  winter,  but  a  difference  of  full  thirty-six 
days  may  be  occasioned  by  variations  in  the  eccen- 
tricity of  the  earth's  orbit. 

The  period  of  this  change  is  likewise  much  longer, 
and  embraces  not  tens  of  thousands,  but  hundreds  of 
thousands,  of  years. 

The  last  period  of  a  state  of  high  eccentricity,  ac- 
cording to  CroU's  calculations,  began  two  hundred  and 
forty  thousand  years  ago,  and  persisted  for  one  hundred 
and  sixty  thousand  years,  terminating,  therefore,  eighty 
thousand  years  ago.  During  the  greater  portion  of 
this  period  the  winters  were  more  than  twenty  days 
longer  than  the  summers,  and  the  temperature,  we  are 
told,  was  many  degrees  lower  than  it  is  at  the  present 
time.  Another  high  state  of  eccentricity,  that  next 
preceding  the  one  just  referred  to,  embraced  a  period 
extending  from  about  nine  hundred  and  eighty  thou- 
sand to  about  seven  hundred  and  twenty  thousand 
years  ago.  Both  Croll  and  Lyell  at  one  time  assigned 
the  Glacial  Epoch  to  this  period,  but  subsequently  they 
adopted  the  later  period,  which  culminated  about  two 
hundred  thousand  years  since.  With  this  view  Sir 
John    Lubbock   and    other  glacialists  are  in   accord. 


THE  AGE  OF  THE   HUMAN   RACE.  25 1 

And  as  the  Glacial  Period  was  wholly  or  in  great  part 
subsequent  to  the  Tertiary  Period,  and  as  man,  accord- 
ing to  the  majority  of  the  authorities,  appeared  imme- 
diately or  shortly  after  the  close  of  the  Tertiary,  we 
are  called  upon  by  the  school  of  Lyell,  Croll,  and 
Geike  to  grant  man  an  antiquity  of  at  least  two  hun- 
dred thousand  years,  if  not  more. 

The  conclusions  arrived  at  by  Prestwich,  one  of  the 
most  eminent  of  English  geologists,  are  quite  different 
from  those  just  enunciated.  As  the  result  of  a  careful 
examination  of  the  subject,  he  declares  that  "  the  time 
required  for  the  formation  and  duration  of  the  great 
ice-sheets  of  Europe  and  America — the  Glacial  Period 
— need  not,  after  making  all  allowances,  have  extended 
beyond  fifteen  to  twenty-five  thousand  years,  instead  of 
the  one  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  years  which  have 
been  claimed."  He  also  limits  the  time  of  the  so- 
called  post-Glacial  Period,  or  of  the  melting  away  of 
the  ice-sheet,  to  from  eight  thousand  to  ten  thousand 
years  or  less.  ^ 

Mr.  G.  Frederick  Wright,  in  his  exhaustive  work  on 
The  Ice  Age  in  North  America^  states  in  one  sentence 
the  difficulty  that  confronts  those  who  would  attempt 
to  fix  even  approximately  the  date  of  the  Ice  Age.  He 
declares  that  "the  sum  of  the  whole  matter,  so  far  as 
theory  is  concerned,  seems  to  be  that,  as  yet,  we  do 
not  know  what  was  the  ultimate  cause  of  the  Glacial 
Period."  ^  "  Everything  here,"  as  he  truly  observes, 
"depends  upon  the  forces  which  distribute  the  heat 
and  moisture  over  the  land  surfaces."  Owing  "  to  the 
general  state  of  uncertainty  as  to  the  laws  regulating 

'  Geology,  vol.  ii.  pp.  553,  554. 
*  P.  440. 


252  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND  FAITH. 

the  absorption,  retention,  and  distribution  of  the  sun's 
heat  upon  the  earth,  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that 
when  the  winters  of  the  northern  hemisphere  occur 
in  aphelion  they  will  be  colder  than  now.  Whether 
they  would  be  so  or  not  depends  upon  the  action  of 
forces  whose  laws  cannot  now  be  accurately  calcu- 
lated.'" 

The  same  writer  deprecates  the  idea  of  geologists 
abandoning  their  own  field  to  accept  the  glittering 
results  of  celestial  mathematics,  and  favors  the  leaving 
the  discussion  of  the  theories  of  ultimate  causation  of 
the  Glacial  Epoch  "to  where  it  belongs,"  not  to 
astronomers,  or  geologists  even,  but  "to  the  more 
enlightened  meteorologists  of  the  future." 

Referring  to  the  theory  of  a  succession  of  glacial 
periods,  he  maintains  that  local  glaciers  are  amply 
sufficient  to  account  for  all  the  facts  observed.  Le 
Conte  concludes  a  discussion  of  the  subject  with  the 
statement:  "The  evidence  at  present,  therefore,  is 
overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  the  iiniquejiess  of  the  Gla- 
cial Epoch."  "^  These  conclusions  "with  reference  to 
Croll's  theory  are  those  pretty  generally  adopted  at  the 
present  time  by  the  American  geologists  best  qualified 
to  interpret  the  facts."  ^ 

From  the  foregoing  we  learn  that  neither  geology 
nor  astronomy  can  give  any  answer  to  the  questions 
regarding  the  cause,  time,  or  duration  of  the  Ice  Age. 
The  opinions  entertained  on  the  subject  by  even  the 
ablest  exponents' of  these  sciences  are  most  diverse,  and 

'  Op.  cit.,  p.  427.  ^  Elements  0/  Geology,  p.  557. 

'Wright,  op.  cit.,  p.  439;  cf.  also  Uphani's  paper  on  "Ac- 
cumulation of  Drumlins,"  in  American  Naturalist  for  Decem- 
ber, 1893. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  253 

often  as  contradictory  as  they  are  extravagant.^     Are 
we  then  to  remain  in  complete  ignorance  of  these  mat- 

^  To  realize  how  utterly  at  variance  are  the  foremost  repre- 
sentatives of  science  on  the  subject  of  the  Glacial  Theory,  com- 
pare the  views  of  Agassiz,  CroU,  and  James  Geike,  on  the  one 
hand,  with  those  of  Prestwich,  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  and  Sir 
Henry  Howorth,  on  the  other.  According  to  Agassiz,  during 
the  Glacial  Age  "the  polar  ice,  which  at  the  present  day  covers 
the  miserable  regions  of  Spitzbergen,  Greenland,  and  Siberia, 
extended  far  into  the  temperate  zones  of  both  hemispheres, 
leaving  probably  but  a  broader  or  narrower  belt  around  the 
equator  ;  nay,  .  .  .  the  whole  surface  of  the  earth  was,  accord- 
ing to  all  probabilitj^,  for  a  time  one  uninterrupted  surface  of 
ice,  from  which  projected  only  the  highest  mountain-ridges 
covered  with  eternal  snow."  And  not  only  was  all  this  land 
enveloped  in  a  huge  winding-sheet  of  ice  and  snow  during 
the  Glacial  Age,  but  also  "all  the  northern  seas,"  Croll 
declares,  "  must  at  that  period  have  been  blocked  up  with  .solid 
ice,"  and  "  the  entire  Atlantic,  from  Scandinavia  to  Greenland, 
was  filled  with  land  ice."  These  massive  ice-sheets,  we  are 
assured,  flowed  like  water,  or  at  least  like  pitch  or  treacle,  and 
pushed  their  way  over  plain  and  mountain  hundreds  and  thou- 
sands of  miles,  and,  like  a  gigantic  machine,  "  scooped  out  all 
our  glens,  rounded  all  our  hills,  and  dug  out  all  our  lakes." 

This  theory  of  the  Ice  Age,  as  understood  by  glacialists  gen- 
erally, Howorth  pronounces  "  the  wildest  dream  which  a  fertile 
imagination  ever  imported  into  science."  In  the  most  positive 
manner  he  asserts  that  he  does  not  "believe  in  interglacial 
periods,  in  a  great  overwhelming  ice-cap,  in  the  physical  pos- 
sibility of  land  ice  moving  for  hundreds  of  miles  over  level 
plains  like  that  of  Poland,  or  in  the  possibility  of  tropical 
America  being  so  glaciated  that  the  valley  of  the  Amazon  was 
filled  with  ice." 

For  a  clear  exposition  of  the  views  of  extreme  glacialists  and 
of  those  of  their  opponents  see  the  Great  Ice  Age,  by  James 
Geike  ;  Climate  afid  Time,  by  James  Croll  ;  T/ie  Mammoth  and 
the  Flood  and  The  Glacial  Nightmare  and  the  Flood,  by  Sir  Henry 
Howorth.     For  interesting  and  thorough  discussions  of  the 


254  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND  FAITH. 

ters?  or  may  we  not  expect  information  from  other 
sources?  I  think  this  latter  question  may  be  answered 
in  the  affirmative.  The  light,  however,  will  not  come 
from  astronomy  or  geology,  but  rather  from  a  more 
neglected  but  nevertheless  a  more  reliable  witness — 
history.  This,  after  all,  notwithstanding  what  scien- 
tists may  say  to  the  contrary,  is  the  witness  that  we 
are  ultimately  forced  to  appeal  to  in  nearly  all  the  dif- 
ficulties that  arise  in  discussing  the  much-vexed  ques- 
tion of  the  age  of  our  species. 

Reign  of  Ice  during  Historic  Times. 

Ivcaving  aside  the  question  as  to  the  cause  of  the  Ice 
Age  as  not  relevant  to  our  present  purpose,  may  not 
history  afford  us  at  least  a  portion  of  the  information 
we  are  seeking  concerning  the  time  of  occurrence  and 
the  duration  of  that  reign  of  ice  of  which  we  have, 
both  in  America  and  Europe,  so  many  and  so  striking 
traces  ?  As  for  myself,  I  am  satisfied  that  it  can,  and 
I  shall  briefly  indicate  a  few  of  the  reasons  for  the 
faith  that  is  in  me. 

Many,  if  not  the  majority,  of  those  who  havQ  treated 

same  topic  see  \he  Scottish  and  Edinburgh  Reviews  for  Oct., 
1893  ;  the  London  Quarterly  Review  for  Jan.,  1894  ;  the  Nine- 
tee?ith  Century,  for  Feb.,  1894,  in  which  there  is  a  forceful  article 
on  "  The  Glacial  Theory  "  by  the  Duke  of  Argyll ;  and  recent 
numbers  of  the  Geological  Magazine,  in  which  the  subject  has 
been  treated  by  some  of  the  most  eminent  of  contemporary' 
geologists.  It  has  now  been  demonstrated  that  current  notions 
respecting  the  Ice  Age  must  be  abandoned,  and  that  the  Glacial 
Theor}',  as  held  by  extreme  glacialists,  must  be  materially 
altered  in  order  adequately  to  account  for  the  facts  which  it 
purports  to  interpret. 


THE  AGE   OF  THE   HUMAN   RACE.  255 

of  the  Ice  Age  have  taken  it  for  granted  that  the  tem- 
perature which  characterized  this  period  was  much 
lower  than  it  is  at  present  or  has  been  during  recent 
times.  Such  an  assumption,  however,  is  unwarranted. 
M.  Charles  Martin  has  shown  that  a  lowering  of  the 
temperature  by  four  degrees  would  be  sufficient  to 
explain  all  the  phenomena  of  glaciation  of  the  Ice 
Period.  And  this  diminution  of  temperature  may  be 
regarded  as  a  maximum,  for  it  is  a  well-known  fact, 
which  no  glacialist  will  deny,  that  moisture  is  even  a 
more  important  factor  in  the  production  of  glaciers 
than  extreme  cold.  The  river-beds  and  the  alluvial 
deposits  of  the  Ice  Age  attest  the  fact  that  this  period 
was  one  of  great  humidity,  as  well  as  one  of  reduced 
temperature — that  if  it  was  characterized  by  an  extra- 
ordinary extension  of  ice-fields  in  both  the  Old  and 
New  Worlds,  it  was  no  less  marked  for  the  great  pre- 
cipitation which  then  prevailed,  and  for  the  immense 
volumes  of  water  which  then  coursed  along  channels 
that  now  convey  but  little  water  or  are  at  times  almost 
dry. 

It  is,  too,  a  mistaken  notion  to  imagine  that  we 
must  go  way  back  to  the  dim  prehistoric  past  to  find 
in  Europe  such  a  condition  of  humidity  and  reduced 
temperature.  We  have  history  to  assure  us  that  it 
obtained  long  after  the  advent  of  man  in  this  part  of 
the  world — that  we  need  not  go  back  more  than  fifteen 
hundred  or  two  thousand  years  to  find  climatic  con- 
ditions quite  different  from  those  which  are  now  prev- 
alent, and  winters  whose  rigors  were  far  greater  than 
anything  that  has  ever  been  known  in  more  modern 
times. 

According  to  Herodotus,  the  climate  of  Scythia  in 


256  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH, 

liis  day  was  about  like  that  of  Alaska  or  Labrador  in 
our  own.  It  as  well  as  the  country  along  the  Danube 
was  completely  frost-bound  during  eight  months  of 
the  year.  The  summer  was  characterized  by  torrential 
rains,  a  reminder  of  which  we  occasionally  have — but 
at  rare  intervals — in  those  inundations  that  carry  death 
and  destruction  before  them,  and  which,  when  they 
do  occur,  are  looked  upon  as  national  disasters*. 

Caesar's  account  of  the  climate  of  Gaul,  of  the  rigor 
of  its  winters,  and  of  the  excess  of  its  rainfalls  is  the 
same  as  that  given  by  the  Father  of  History  regarding 
the  region  of  the  Danube.  The  testimony  of  Varro, 
Cicero,  Strabo,  and  Diodorus  Siculus  concerning  the 
severity  of  the  winters  of  Gaul  are  but  confirmatory 
of  that  of  Caesar.  So  great,  says  Diodorus  Siculus,  is 
the  cold  of  Gaul  in  winter  "that  almost  all  the  rivers 
are  frozen  over,  and  natural  bridges  are  formed  over 
which  large  armies  with  their  chariots  and  baggage 
pass  in  safety."  Virgil  and  Ovid  say  the  same  thing 
of  the  glaciation  of  the  Danube  and  the  Euxine. 
Ovid  tells  us  that  not  only  has  he  seen  the  Danube 
frozen  over,  but  that  he  has  witnessed  the  whole  of 
the  Euxine  covered  with  ice,  and  that  he  has  walked 
on  it  when  in  this  condition.  More  than  this:  he 
declares  that  so  intense  was  the  cold  that  even  wine 
congealed  and  was  broken  into  lumps  when  drunk. 
Virgil  and  Horace  testify  to  the  low  temperature 
which  prevailed  in  Italy,  and  picture  to  us  climatic 
conditions  existing  in  their  day,  as  far  south  as  the 
Campania  of  Rome  and  the  ramparts  of  Tarentum, 
such  as  now  characterize  the  winters  of  Northern 
Europe. 

So  intense  was  the  cold  of  Scythia,  declares  Herod- 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN    RACE.  257 

otiis,  that  the  ass,  one  of  the  hardiest  of  animals,  was 
nnable  to  live  there.  Aristotle  makes  the  same  state- 
ment about  Gaul.  For  a  similar  reason,  we  are  assured 
by  Theophrastus,  the  olive  could  not  be  raised  in 
Greece  more  than  four  hundred  stadia  from  the  sea. 
And  according  to  the  testimony  of  both  Greek  and 
Roman  writers  the  arctic  rigor  of  the  climate  of  Gaul 
made  it  impossible  to  cultivate  either  the  vine  or  the 
olive. 

During  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era  the 
climatic  conditions  of  the  portions  of  Europe  we  have 
named  were,  according  to  all  contemporary  writers 
who  refer  to  the  subject,  essentially  the  same  as  they 
were  in  the  times  of  Herodotus,  Horace,  and  Ovid. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  indicate  how  much  the  climate 
has  since  changed,  how  entirely  different  it  now  is 
from  what  it  was  when  Aristotle  taught  and  Virgil 
sang.  In  reading  the  accounts  left  us  of  the  former 
intense  cold  of  countries  where  the  climate  is  at  pres- 
ent so  mild  we  can  almost  imagine  ourselves  perusing 
the  fanciful  descriptions  of  some  of  our  modern  geol- 
ogists and  archaeologists  descanting  on  the  rigors  of 
the  climate  of  the  Glacial  Period,  when  our  troglodytic 
ancestors,  clothed  in  the  skins  of  wild  beasts,  shiver- 
ing and  suffering,  huddled  together  in  damp  and  gloomy 
caverns  which  afforded  them  their  only  available  shel- 
ter from  the  biting  blasts  of  winters  that  lasted  for  the 
greater  portion  of  the  year. 

M.  Fuster,  who  has  made  a  profound  investigation 
of  the  subject,  declares  emphatically  that  "if  there  is 
a  settled  fact  of  history,  it  is  that  of  the  extreme  rigor 
of  the  climate  of  ancient  Gaul.  All  testimonies,  all 
opinions,  all  circumstances  forcibly  and  unanimously 

17 


258  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

proclaim  the  intensity  of  its  cold,  the  superabundance 
of  its  rains,  and  the  violence  of  its  tempests.  It  is 
futile  to  contend  against  such  a  fact  by  invoking  the 
aid  of  false  notions  or  prejudices  that  are  wholly  with- 
out foundation.  Like  truth  itself,  it  is  sure,  sooner 
or  later,  to  be  triumphant."  '  What  M.  Fuster  here 
says  of  Gaul  can  with  equal  truth  be  predicated  of 
the  other  countries  of  Europe  just  mentioned,  for, 
from  what  we  have  already  learned,  they  belong  to 
the  same  category. 

The  change,  then,  from  extreme  cold  to  genial 
warmth  has  occurred  within  historic  times.  Might 
we  not,  if  we  had  the  light  of  history  to  guide  us 
back  a  few  more  centuries  or  a  few  more  thousands 
of  years — for  even  the  traditional  chronology  allows 
us  this  time — find  all  the  rigor  of  climate,  all  the 
abundance  of  snow  and  ice,  and  all  the  excess  of  pre- 
cipitation which  geologists  tell  us  were  among  the 
distinguishing  features  of  that  portion  of  the  Quater- 
nary Period  known  as  the  Ice  Age?  My  opinion  is 
that  we  should.  A  mean  annual  temperature  a  few 
degrees  lower  than  it  is  at  present,  and  a  more  humid 
condition  of  the  atmosphere,  are,  as  we  have  seen,  all 
that  is  necessary  enormously  to- augment  the  volume 
of  our  water-courses  and  to  produce  those  mighty 
glaciers  that  at  one  time  in  the  indefinable  past 
wrapped  extensive  areas  of  both  the  Old  World  and 
the  New  in  a  deadly  mantle  of  ice.  Given  a  slight 
variation  in  our  present  thermometric  and  hygro- 
metric  conditions,  and  we  should  in  a  short  time,  as 
meteorology  teaches  us,  witness  all  the  phenomena 
of  the  Glacial  Epoch.     And  such  a  variation  would 

'  Quoted  in  the  Didionnaire  apologetique,  p.  215. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN   RACE.  259 

effect  in  a  few  centuries — in  a  few  thousand  years  at 
most — all  the  grand  mutations  for  which  geologists 
and  archaeologists  demand  tens  of  thousands  and  hun- 
dreds of  thousands — yea,  millions — of  years. 

In  view,  therefore,  of  these  facts,  and  of  a  growing 
conviction  which  I  entertain  that  many  of  the  phe- 
nomena which  modern  scientists  are  wont  to  refer  to 
the  early  Quaternary  Period,  or  at  least  to  the  remote 
and  unknown  prehistoric  past,  really  occurred  within 
historic  times,  I  decline  to  accede  to  the  extravagant 
demands  made  by  geologists  and  archaeologists.  Many, 
it  is  known,  fall  into  error  because,  forsooth,  they  have 
some  pet  theory  to  support,  or  because,  by  reason  of 
their  environment,  they  are  the  victims,  unconscious 
it  may  be,  of  delusions  and  of  prejudices  that  color 
all  their  observations  and  vitiate  all  their  conclusions. 
The  antiquity  of  man  may  be  much  greater  than  has 
hitherto  been  supposed,  but  the  evidence  evoked  from 
climatic  changes  which  are  presumed  to  have  taken 
place  since  the  advent  of  man  is  not  conclusive.  Hence 
of  all  inferences  drawn  from  such  premises  we  may 
simply  and  unhesitatingly  say,  Non  sequitur. 

The  Age  of  the  Mammoth  and  the  Reindeer. 

Another  specious  argument  often  advanced  in  favor 
of  the  remote  antiquity  of  our  race  is  the  occurrence 
of  undoubted  human  remains  with  those  of  animals 
long  since  extinct.  Among  the  animals  whose  re- 
mains have  most  frequently  been  found  Vv'ith  those 
of  man  are  those  of  the  elephant,  the  cave-lion,  the 
cave-bear,  the  Irish  elk,  the  cave-hyena,  and  the 
reindeer.      But  these  animals,   it  was  contended,  all 


26o  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

belonged  to  the  geologic  past — to  the  Quaternary 
Age  at  latest — and  hence  the  universally  received 
opinion  that  the  appearance  of  man  on  the  earth  ante- 
dates by  far  the  epoch  assigned  for  his  advent  by  the 
traditional  chronology. 

It  has  long  been  accepted  as  a  fact  that  could  not  be 
gainsaid  that  man  was  contemporary  with  the  mam- 
moth. Remains  of  this  species  of  elephant  and  human 
relics  have  been  discovered  in  many  places  in  Europe 
and  America — especially  in  Europe — in  the  same 
deposits,  and  so  commingled  that  it  was  regarded  as 
certain  that  they  belonged  to  the  same  epoch.  And 
many  were  the  ingenious  theories  that  were  evolved 
to  account  for  the  disappearance  of  this  monster  of 
"  the  forest  primeval  "  to  which  not  the  slightest  allu- 
sion has  been  made  by  any  record  that  can  be  regarded 
as  authentic.  In  America,  in  Great  Britain,  and  in 
various  parts  of  Europe  bones  of  this  giant  pachyderm 
have  been  found  in  countless  numbers.  In  Siberia  the 
tusks  are  of  such  frequent  occurrence  as  to  give  rise  to 
a  considerable  traffic.  All  are  familiar  with  the  find- 
ing, in  1799,  of  one  of  these  huge  beasts  encased  in  a 
laree  block  of  ice  near  the  river  Lena  on  the  border 
of  the  Arctic  Ocean,  and  remember  that  the  flesh  was 
in  such  a  perfect  state  of  preservation  that  dogs  and 
other  carnivorous  animals  ate  it  with  avidity.^ 

'  This  singularly  well-preserved  specimen  of  the  mammoth 
— or  hairy  elephant,  as  it  is  sometimes  called — is  now,  as  my 
readers  are  aware,  in  the  great  Museum  of  Natiiral  History  of 
St.  Petersburg.  It  is  by  far  the  best  specimen  of  the  kind  yet 
discovered.  *  Some  years  ago,  during  a  visit  to  the  Czar's 
dominions,  had  an  opportunit\'  of  examining  it,  and  whilst 
pondering   over   some    of  the    thoughts    suggested  by  this 


THE  AGE  OF  THE   HUMAN   RACE.  261 

The  mammoth,  according  to  the  majority  of  geolo- 
gists, was  regarded  as  the  oldest  of  the  animals  coeval 
with  man  which  are  now  found  in  a  fossil  state.  Hence, 
as  it  was  supposed  to  have  disappeared  some  scores  of 
thousands  of  years  ago,  man,  if  its  contemporary,  would 
have  a  very  hoary  antiquity  indeed.  Passing  over  the 
divers  explanations  that  have  been  offered  at  various 
times  of  the  difficulty  raised,  it  will  be  quite  sufficient 
for  our  present  purpose  to  state  that  some  of  the  ablest 
living  archaeologists  deny  in  ioto  the  coexistence  of  man 
and  the  mammoth.  Among  these  may  be  signalized  the 
distinguished  and  venerable  archaeologist  of  Copen- 
hagen, J.  Steenstrup,  and  Prof.  Virchow  of  Berlin. 
The  former,  as  the  result  of  a  critical  examination 
of  "the  discoveries  in  Europe  which  are  supposed 
to  prove  the  contemporaneity  of  man  with  the  mam- 
moth, reached  the  conclusion  that  not  only  is  the  evi- 
dence inadequate,  but  for  climatic  and  geologic  reasons 
no  such  coexistence  is  possible."  '  This  opinion  is  cor- 
dially endorsed  by  Virchow,  who,  with  many  of  the 
members  of  the  German  Anthropological  Association, 

creature  of  another  age  and  clime,  addressed  myself  to 
the  curator  of  the  Museum,  a  learned  German  savant,  well 
known  in  the  world  of  science  as  one  of  the  ablest  of  Euro- 
pean naturalists,  and  asked  him  how  long,  in  his  estimation, 
it  was  since  the  mammoth  became  extinct.  "How  long?" 
quoth  he,  "how  long?  Forty  thousand  years,  fifty  thousand 
years,  a  hundred  thousand  years."  He  was  not  very  positive 
about  the  exact  number  of  years,  as  his  answer  indicates,  but, 
like  all  the  members  of  the  school  to  which  he  belonged,  he 
was  an  evolutionist  of  the  most  pronounced  type  ;  he  affected 
to  be  certain  that  the  lapse  of  time  was  to  be  measured  by  noth- 
ing less  than  multiples  of  tens  of  thousands  of  years. 
*  Science,  February,  1893. 


262  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

at  their  meeting  in  August,  1892,  went  even  further, 
and  declared  that  ' '  the  Reindeer  Period  was  the  re- 
motest to  vsihich  they  were  willing  to  assign  the  ap- 
pearance of  man  in  Europe  on  existing  evidence." 

According  to  the  division  of  geologic  time  here 
referred  to,  the  Mammoth  Period  was  the  first  subdi- 
vision of  the  Quaternary  Age.  The  Reindeer  Period 
immediately  followed.  But  the  reindeer  is  still  among 
existing  animals.  It  did  not  become  extinct,  as  did  so 
many  others  that  are  alleged  to  have  been  contempo- 
rary with  early  man,  but  simply  migrated  to  a  colder 
climate.  As  all  are  aware,  it  is  still  found  in  large 
numbers  in  Northern  Europe,  especially  in  Lapland. 
In  Caesar's  time  it  lived  in  much  more  southerly  lati- 
tudes. In  his  Commentaries  the  Roman  commander 
describes  it  as  one  of  the  strange  animals  in  the  Her- 
cynian  Forest.*  The  occurrence,  therefore,  of  human 
remains  in  France  and  Germany  together  with  those 
of  the  reindeer  would  not  be  evidence  of  the  great 
antiquity  of  man,  for  it  would  not  necessarily  carry 
back  the  age  of  our  race  more  than  a  few  thousand 
years  at  most.  And  as  there  is  reason  to  believe  that 
the  reindeer  kept  to  the  forests  of  Central  Europe  long 
after  Caesar's  time,  we  are  evidently  dealing  with  a 
species  of  mammal  that  belongs  to  the  historic  as  well 
as  to  a  geologic  period. 

What  has  been  said  of  the  reindeer  may,  in  a  mea- 
sure, be  asserted  of  the  urns,  cave-bear,  cave-lion,  cave- 
hyena,  and  Irish  elk.  The  urus  is  described  by  Caesar, 
and  at  the  time  of  the  Roman  invasion  it  ran  wild 
in  Gaul.  It  has,  however,  long  since  become  extinct. 
As  to  the  cave-bear,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  it 

'  De  Bell.  Gall.,  vi.  26. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN   RACE.  263 

did  not  disappear  until  comparatively  recent  times. 
Certain  it  is  that  its  remains  have  been  found  asso- 
ciated with  those  of  some  of  our  domestic  animals. 
For  this  reason  there  are  not  wanting  those  who  main- 
tain, and  not  without  show  of  reason,  that  the  great 
bears  referred  to  in  the  chronicles  of  the  Middle  Ages 
were  none  other  than  the  cave-bears,  also  remarkable 
for  their  size,  of  the  geologist  and  archaeologist.  The 
documents  referring  to  the  cave-lion  and  the  cave- 
hyena  as  belonging  to  the  fauna  of  Western  Europe 
have  not  the  same  authenticity  possessed  by  those  that 
make  mention  of  the  cave-bear,  the  urus,  and  the  rein- 
deer. But  the  absence  of  all  reliable  historical  data 
regarding  them  is,  after  all,  no  more  than  negative 
evidence.  Considering  to  what  an  extent  the  whole 
of  this  part  of  the  world  was,  even  long  after  the  time 
of  the  Romans,  an  immense  terra  incognita^  it  is  not 
surprising  that  these  animals,  like  many  others  that 
are  known  to  have  existed  during  this  period,  should 
have  eluded  observation  or  been  passed  over  in  silence. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  immense  numbers  of  lions  are 
known  formerly  to  have  frequented  parts  of  Northern 
Africa  where  they  are  now  rarely  if  ever  met  with, 
and  in  view  of  the  further  fact  that  they  existed  in 
parts  of  Europe  from  which  they  have  long  since  dis- 
appeared, it  is  far  from  unlikely — it  seems,  on  the  con- 
trary, quite  probable — that  the  king  of  animals  was 
one  of  the  denizens  of  the  forests  of  Southern  Gaul  not 
only  during  the  Roman  period,  but  also  during  times 
long  subsequent.  We  learn  from  the  Greek  writers  that 
he  formerly  inhabited  the  forests  of  Thrace,  Thessaly, 
and  Macedonia,  and  from  this  and  other  facts  of  like 
import  we  may  feel  fully  warranted  in  considering  him 


264  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

as  being,  in  Europe,  the  contemporary  of  the  known 
fauna  of  the  historical  period.  Regarding  the  great 
Irish  elk — Cerviis  megaccros — whose  remains  are  found 
in  so  many  portions  of  the  Old  World,  especially  in 
France,  Great  Britain,  and  Ireland,  it  suffices  to  say 
that  everything  known  about  him  seems  to  point  to 
his  extinction  within  historic  times.  Certain  ancient 
records  referring  to  him  inform  us  that  he  was  much 
sought  after  by  the  Romans,  who  had  him  brought 
from  regions  so  remote  as  England. 

There  is,  then,  no  valid  reason  for  attributing  to  the 
animals  named  the  great  antiquity  so  frequently 
claimed  for  them.'  And  there  is,  consequently,  no 
reason  for  insisting  on  the  great  age  of  mankind  be- 
cause human  relics  have  been  found  associated  with 
the  remains  of  animals  that  have  been  extinct  for  a 
long  time,  it  is  true,  but  not  certainly  during  those 
untold  ages  of  which  geologists  and  a  certain  school 
of  archaeologists  speak.  There  is  surely  nothing  sur- 
prising in  the  fact  that  a  half  dozen  or  a  dozen  animals 
— the  contemporaries  of  primitive  man — should  have 
disappeared  in  prehistoric  times,  when  a  much  larger 
number  of  mammals  and  birds — forty  or  fifty  species, 
at  least — are  known  to  have  become  extinct  within 
historic  times.'  The  wonder  is  rather  that  the  number 
of  species  that  died  out  in  prehistoric  times  was  not 
far  greater — that  there  was  not  a  hundred  or  more  of 
them — considering  the  long  lapse  of  time  that  inter- 
vened between  the  advent  of  man  in  Europe  and  the 
beginning  of  the  historical  period. 

'  See  an  interesting  discussion  on  this  subject  in  Knowledge 
for  January,  1893.  Cf.  also  The  Epoch  of  the  Mammoth,  0^x2,"^. 
xi,,  and  The  Recent  Origin  of  Man,  by  James  Southall. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  265 

In  the  early  part  of  the  last  century  the  island  of 
Rodriguez,  in  the  Indian  Ocean,  was,  according  to  the 
French  writer  Leguat,  remarkable  for  the  number  and 
variety  and  uniqueness  of  its  fauna.'  Before  the  close 
of  the  century  it  had  so  completely  disappeared  that 
Leguat's  testimony  regarding  it  was  called  in  question. 
Long  subsequently,  however,  certain  fossil  remains 
were  found  in  the  soil  which  the  eminent  naturalist 
Milne-Edwards  showed  to  be  the  relics  of  the  identical 
species  described  by  his  fellow-countryman  a  century 
and  a  half  before.  The  extinction  of  the  bison  in  this 
country,  where  a  few  decades  ago  it  roamed  over  our 
Western  prairies  in  herds  of  thousands,  if  not  tens  of 
thousands,  is  an  example  before  our  own  eyes  of  the  short 
space  of  time  required  for  the  utter  destruction  of  a 
numerous  and  a  powerful  species.  For  this  and  simi- 
lar reasons  that  it  is  unnecessary  here  to  multiply  we 
should  hesitate  long  before  attempting  to  base  an  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  great  antiquity  of  man  on  the  dis- 
parition  of  a  few  species  of  animals  that  are  known  to 
have  been  coetaneous  with  primitive  man,  but  which, 
for  all  we  know  to  the  contrary,  may  have  lived  in  his- 
toric as  well  as  in  prehistoric  times. 

'See  "Adventures  of  Fran9ois  IvCguat,'"  in  the  Edinburgh 
Review  for  April,  1892. 


CHAPTER  III. 

the  antiquity  of  man  according  to  prehistoric 
a r ch^ ology.—  geolo gica l  chr onome i ers. 

The  Arch^ological  Argument, 

THE  argument  of  all  others  in  favor  of  man's  great 
antiquity  is  that  founded  on  the  gradual  and  pe- 
culiar evolution  of  the  industrial  arts,  the  conclusive- 
ness of  which  argument  most  archaeologists  consider 
as  now  beyond  dispute.  During  the  last  few  decades 
especially  this  argument  has  had  a  special  interest 
attached  to  it,  and  a  new  force  given  it,  on  account 
of  the  numerous  and  important  finds  made  not  only 
in  Europe,  but  also  in  America.  Various  objects  of 
human  industry,  of  ancient  but  uncertain  date,  tools, 
weapons,  and  implements  of  divers  kinds  employed 
by  primitive  man,  have  been  unearthed  and  compared, 
and  the  result  arrived  at,  we  are  informed,  has  been 
that  the  teachings  of  history  and  the  Bible  anent  the 
age  of  our  species  have  to  be  either  greatly  modified 
or  altogether  abandoned. 

We  have  seen,  in  a  previous  chapter,  that  Hesiod, 
together  with  the  majority  of  the  earlier  Greek  and 
Oriental  writers,  regarded  mankind  as  having  de- 
scended from  a  higher  to  a  lower  plane — that  the  men 
of  the  later  periods  of  the  world's  history  were  de- 
graded— or  decivilized,  to  use  a  more  expressive  word 
— in  comparison  with  those  who  lived  happy  and  god- 

266 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  267 

like  lives  in  the  Golden  Age  of  humanity's  first 
beginnings. 

Archaeologists  divide  the  first  period  of  human  his- 
tory into  three  ages,  called,  in  the  order  of  succession, 
the  Stone  Age,  the  Bronze  Age,  and  the  Iron  Age. 
These  ages  have,  by  certain  writers,  been  divided  into 
a  greater  or  less  number  of  sub-ages,  but  shall  here 
retain  the  division  just  given,  which  was  the  one 
adopted  by  Danish  archaeologists  when  the  founda- 
tions of  the  science  of  prehistoric  archaeology  were 
first  laid.^ 

If  the  evolution  theory  of  the  origin  of  man  and  of 
the  development  of  civilization  be  true,  we  should 
expect  to  find  the  archaeological  division  universally 
true  and  apply  equally  to  all  peoples  in  all  parts  of  the 
world.  But  is  this  a  fact  ?  An  answer  to  this  question 
necessarily  precedes  a  reply  to  the  query  regarding  the 
antiquity  of  the  human  species. 

The  Stone  Age. 

There  does  not  seem  to  be  any  doubt  that  in  certain 
parts  of  Europe,  perhaps  throughout  the  greater  por- 

'  The  division  of  primitive  time  into  periods  of  stone, 
bronze,  and  iron,  although  brought  into  general  use  by  the 
Danish  archaeologists,  notably  E.  C.  Thomsen,  is  not  of  mod- 
ern origin.  It  occurs  in  a  book  written  by  one  Gognet  nearly 
a  century  and  a  half  ago.  More  than  this  :  the  same  division 
is  found  in  the  De  Renim  Natura  (L,ib.  V.  v.  1282  et  seq.)  of 
the  Roman  poet  Lucretius.     His  words  are  : 

"  Arma  antiqua  manus,  ungues  dentesque  fuerunt 

Et  lapides.  .  .  . 

Posterius  ferri  vis  est  asrisque  recepta, 

Et  prior  asris  erat  quam  ferri  cognitus  usus. 

Quo  facilis  magis  est  natura  et  copia  major." 


268  BIBLE.   SCIENXK,  AND   FAITH. 

tion  of  it,  the  Stone  Age  preceded  the  ages  of  Bronze 
and  Iron.  The  reason  for  this  belief  is  that  the  earliest 
implements  met  with  are  invariably  of  stone,  at  first 
rough  and  rude,  but  at  a  later  date  often  beautifully 
polished  and  of  delicate  workmanship.  With  these 
are  also  found  implements  of  horn  and  bone,  which, 
in  lieu  of  metal,  constituted  for  primitive  man  the 
chief  if  not  the  sole  materials  available  for  the  manu- 
facture of  the  simple  tools  and  weapons  necessarj'  for 
purposes  of  defence  or  for  hunting  beasts  of  the  chase. 
In  localities  marked  by  several  successive  civilizations 
we  frequently,  but  not  always,  find  a  series  of  deposits, 
the  lowest  of  which  contain  only  stone  implements, 
those  immediately  above  bronze,  while  the  last  in  the 
order  of  time  are  characterized  by  the  occurrence,  in 
greater  or  less  numbers,  of  implements  of  iron. 

It  would  be  a  mistake,  however,  to  imagine  that  the 
Stone  Age  marks  a  fixed  period  in  human  history,  and 
that  it  prevailed  at  the  same  time  in  all  lands  and 
among  all  peoples.  Nothing  could  be  farther  from  the 
truth.  While  one  nation  or  one  tribe  was  living  in  the 
Age  of  Stone,  its  next  neighbor  may  have  been  enjoying 
the  advantages  of  the  Age  of  Bronze  or  of  Iron.  Even 
now,  in  all  the  effulgence  of  the  much-vaunted  civili- 
zation of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  Stone  Age  still 
continues  in  some  parts  of  the  world.  To  give  only  a 
few  instances,  it  still  persistsin  some  of  the  islands  of 
the  South  Pacific,  among  the  Fuegians,  the  Esqui- 
maux, and  certain  other  tribes  of  the  Pacific  coast 
of  North  America.  In  Europe  the  use  of  stone  for 
implements  was  not  abandoned  until  a  comparatively 
recent  period,  if,  indeed,  it  can  even  now  be  said  to  be 
entirely  discarded.     According  to   two  archaeologists 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  269 

of  recognized  authority,  Lartet  and  Christy,  weapons 
and  tools  of  stone  were  employed  by  the  inhabitants 
of  Western  Europe  until  the  Roman  invasion,  and 
probably  until  a  later  period.  Records  of  undoubted 
authenticity  tell  us  that  flint  hatchets  and  stone  battle- 
axes  were  used  from  the  fifth  to  the  seventh  century. 
At  a  much  later  epoch — about  the  year  920 — according 
to  Irish  chronicles,  stone  projectiles  were  employed 
in  a  battle  against  the  Danes  near  Limerick.  Similar 
projectiles,  we  are  informed,  were  used  at  the  battle 
of  Hastings  in  1066.  Nor  is  this  all.  There  is  every 
reason  to  believe  that  over  a  century  later,  in  1298, 
stone  weapons  were  employed  by  the  Scottish  soldiery 
under  Wallace.  In  Japan  the  Age  of  Stone  and 
Bronze  lasted  until  the  present  century,  and  in  parts 
of  China  it  still  endures. 

The  Ages  op  Bronze  and  Iron. 

If  there  is  no  fixed  period  of  time  for  the  Stone  Age, 
neither  is  there  a  hard  and  fast  line  of  demarcation 
between  the  Age  of  Stone  and  that  of  Bronze,  or 
between  the  Age  of  Bronze  and  that  of  Iron.  They 
frequently  overlap  one  another,  and  are  in  many  in- 
stances even  quite  synchronous.  This  is  especially  so 
in  the  case  of  the  Age  of  Polished  Stone  and  the  Age 
of  Bronze.  Indeed,  to  so  great  an  extent  is  this  true 
that  many  eminent  archseologists  have  not  hesitated  to 
declare  that  implements  of  polished  stone  and  bronze 
must  be  referred  to  one  and  the  same  age.  Thus  the 
distinguished  Dutch  archaeologist,  M.  Leemans,  denies 
the  distinction  between  the  Age  of  Bronze  and  the 
Age  of  Stone  in  Holland.      And  M.  Alexandre  Ber- 


270  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

trand,  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  French  archaeolo- 
gists, at  the  Congress  of  Archaeologists  held  a  few 
years  ago  at  Stockholm  declared  that  "there  was  in 
reality  no  Age  of  Bronze  in  Italy  and  Gaul." 

Again  :  it  would  be  equally  wide  of  the  truth  to 
assert,  as  is  so  often  done,  that  all  peoples  passed 
through  the  three  phases  of  civilization  indicated  by 
the  Ages  of  Stone,  Bronze,  and  Iron.  This  is  so  far 
from  being  the  case  that  numerous  instances  are  cita- 
ble where  there  are  but  two  ages,  and  sometimes  even 
not  more  than  one.  M.  Bertrand  in  referring  to  this 
subject  does  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  ''this  absolute 
doctrine  of  the  succession  of  three  ages,  which  has 
been  proclaimed  a  law  without  exception,  is,  in  our 
opinion,  the  opposite  of  the  truth.  "^ 

Thus  some  of  the  more  barbarous  tribes  of  the  earth 
are  still  in  the  Stone  Age,  and  have  never  known  any 
other.  Again,  there  are  others,  even  in  Europe,  that 
have  never  known  a  Bronze  Age,  properly  so  called, 
but  who  passed  directly  from  the  Stone  to  the  Iron 
Age.  In  some  parts  of  the  world  the  Ages  of  Stone 
and  Bronze  have  been  synchronous;  in  others,  those 
of  Bronze  and  Iron.  In  still  others,  notably  in  parts 
of  Western  Asia,  we  have  evidence  of  the  contem- 
poraneous use  of  stone,  bronze,  and  iron  from  time 
immemorial.  From  the  fact  that  stone,  bronze,  and 
iron  implements  are  found  together  in  Chaldean  tombs 
and  Assyrian  ruins,  and  that,  too,  from  the  earliest  dawn 
of  the  human  period,  archaeologists  of  note  have  in- 
ferred that  neither  Chaldea  nor  Assyria  ever  knew  the 
Ages  of  Bronze  and  Iron  as  distinct  from  that  of  Stone. 
M.  Oppert  declares  that   Babylonia  and   Assyria  had 

'  Revue  archeologique,  p.  334,  for  the  year  1875. 


THE   AGE   OF  THE   HUMAN   RACE.  2/1 

neither  a  Bronze  nor  an  Iron  Age,  while  M.  Chabas 
rejects  altogether  the  distinction  of  the  three  ages  for 
Egypt. ^  But,  more  remarkable  still,  we  find  that  in 
the  case  of  the  majority  of  the  tribes  of  Africa,  exclud- 
ing the  Egyptians,  the  only  age  that  has  ever  existed 
is  the  Age  of  Iron.  Stone  has  been  used,  and  is  still 
employed,  but  from  the  most  remote  period  that  arch- 
aeology has  been  able  to  reach  iron  has  been  in  com- 
mon use,  while  bronze  has  been  entirely  unknown. 
Dr.  Livingston,  in  his  interesting  Narrative  of  an 
Expedition  to  the  Zambesi  and  its  Tributaries^  informs 
us  that  no  flints  are  found  in  this  part  of  the  "Dark 
Continent,"  and  that  there  are  no  indications  whatever 
of  a  Stone  Age.  So  universally  is  iron  used  for  tools 
and  weapons  that  rude  furnaces  for  smelting  it  are  met 
with  in  every  third  or  fourth  village,  and  the  metal 
here  produced  is  preferred  by  the  natives  to  that  im- 
ported from  England.^ 

Yet  more.  Not  only  are  the  distinctions  based  on 
the  existence  of  the  three  ages  vague  and  misleading 
— not  only  do  the  ages  vary  in  time  and  place,  being 
earlier  in  some  countries  and  later  in  others,  lasting 
for  long  and  indefinite  periods  among  some  peoples, 
and  being  among  others  of  short  duration — but  there 
is  also  a  more  important  fact  to  be  noted,  one  indeed, 

^  Mr.  Flinders  Petrie,  in  his  Ten  Years'  Diggings  in  Egypt, 
has  demonstrated  conclusively  that  implements  of  stone,  cop- 
per, and  bronze  were  long  concurrent  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile, 
and  that  stone  implements  of  the  twelfth  dynasty  are  identical 
in  form  and  workmanship  with  those  found  in  tombs  belong- 
ing to  the  fourth  dynasty.  Indeed,  instruments  of  stone 
were  in  general  use  in  Egypt  until  shortly  before  the  Chris- 
tian era. 

''  P.  561  et  seq. 


272  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

that  is  entirely  subversive  of  the  evolution  theory  of 
primitive  man. 

According  to  the  brilliant  researches  of  Dr.  Schlie- 
mann  at  Hissarlik,  the  site  of  ancient  Troy,  and  at 
Mycenae,  there  was  neither  a  Stone  Age  nor  a  Metal 
Age  in  Greece  and  Asia  Minor.  More  than  this:  the 
arguments  that  the  evolution  school  of  archaeology  has 
based  on  the  development  of  civilization,  as  attested 
by  the  alleged  gradual  transition  from  the  use  of  stone 
to  that  of  bronze  and  from  bronze  to  iron,  is  here 
decidedly  negatived.  In  the  finds  at  Troy  especially 
there  is  the  most  striking  evidence  of  devolution,  or 
degeneration  of  the  inhabitants  who  successively  occu- 
pied this  historic  spot.  Here,  as  well  as  at  Mycenae, 
the  ornaments  and  implements  discovered  even  in  the 
lowest  strata,  far  from  indicating  a  state  of  savagery 
and  utter  degradation,  betoken  one  of  high  civiliza- 
tion, and  of  as  thorough  an  acquaintance  with  the 
working  of  metals  and  the  fictile  arts  as  was  displayed 
at  subsequent  periods.  In  the  light  of  Schliemann's 
discoveries,  not  to  speak  of  others  pointing  in  the  same 
direction  made  in  Egypt  and  among  the  ruins  of  As- 
syria and  Babylonia,  bearing  on  the  condition  of 
primitive  man  in  the  Orient,  the  conclusion  seems 
to  be  inevitable  that  Hesiod  was  right,  and  that  the 
modern  evolution  school  is  wrong — that  the  history 
of  our  race  is  not  one  of  development,  but  one  of 
degeneration.  Thus  the  story  of  the  Fall  as  recorded 
in  Holy  Writ  is  corroborated  by  the  declarations  of  the 
newest  of  the  sciences,  which  is  but  of  yesterday — 
prehistoric  archaeology.^ 

'  It  i.s  well  to  state  here,  once  for  all,  that  the  word  prehistoric 
does  not  have  the  absolute  signification  so  often  attributed  to  it 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  273 

The  chronological  system  of  the  Scandinavian 
archaeologists  has  been  prolific  of  other  errors  besides 
those  just  enumerated.  It  has,  for  instance,  assumed 
tliat  primeval  man  understood  the  manufacture  and 
use  of  bronze  before  he  had  learned  the  art  of  smelting 
iron.  In  the  opinion,  however,  of  the  most  expert 
metallurgists  this  view  is  so  improbable  that  it  borders 
on  the  absurd.  Thus,  Mr.  John  Percy,  one  of  the 
ablest  metallurgists  of  the  age,  declares  that  from  the 
point  of  view  of  metallurgy  the  Age  of  Iron  should  pre- 
cede that  of  Bronze.  ' '  When  archaeologists, ' '  he  tells 
us,  "maintain  the  contrary,  they  should  remember 
that  iron  by  its  very  nature  cannot  be  preserved  in  the 
earth  so  long  as  bronze."  Col.  Tschering,  a  Dane,  as 
the  result  of  long  experience  in  the  manufacture  of 
ordnance,  stated  emphatically  at  a  recent  archaeolog- 
ical congress  at  Copenhagen  that  a  knowledge  of  iron 
should  date  back  much  farther  than  that  of  bronze, 
for  the  reason  that  the  latter  is  much  more  difficult  to 
prepare  than  the  former,  and  requires  the  employment 
of  iron  and  steel  tools.  "  So  undoubted  is  this  fact," 
declares  Horstmann  in  his  criticism  of  the  "three-age 
theory,"  "that  it  would  involve  a  contradiction  of  all 
our  technical  knowledge  to  admit  that  objects  of 
bronze  have  been  fabricated  by  means  of  bronze  tools. 

by  certain  archaeologists.  It  refers  to  that  which  is  anterior 
only  to  local  history,  and  not  that  which  is  prior  to  all  history. 
Everything  in  America  is  prehistoric  that  antedates  the  dis- 
covery of  the  country  by  Europeans.  It  is  evident,  therefore, 
that  certain  objects  found  in  one  part  of  the  world  may  be 
classed  as  prehistoric,  while  similar  objects  in  other  countries 
would  be  regarded  as  historic. 
18 


274  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND    FAITH. 

Such  teaching  is  the  disgrace  of  contemporary  archae- 
ology. ' '  ^ 

Phcenician  Bronze. 

The  bronze  used  in  Europe  in  prehistoric  times,  and 
even  much  of  that  which  was  used  in  historic  times, 
was  an  imported  product.  It  was  undoubtedly  brought 
by  the  Phoenicians,  the  great  manufacturing  and  trad- 
ing nation  of  the  ancient  world,  and  given  in  exchange 
for  other  articles  of  commerce.  So  well  attested  is 
this  fact  that  it  cannot,  I  think,  be  disputed.  The 
use  of  bronze,  therefore,  in  parts  of  Northern  and 
Western  Europe  prior  to  the  use  of  iron  in  these  same 
portions  of  the  world,  does  not,  then,  as  many  have 
erroneously  imagined,  prove  that  man  acquired  the  art 
of  working  bronze  sooner  than  he  did  that  of  produ- 
cing iron,  but  simply  that  with  the  Phoenicians  bronze 
wares  were  more  common  articles  of  merchandise  than 
those  of  iron. 

As  to  the  time  that  has  elapsed  since  the  beginning 
and  the  close  of  the  Stone,  Bronze,  and  Iron  Ages,  it 
may  readily  be  surmised  that  the  most  diverse  and  ex- 
travagant views  have  obtained.  Of  these  I  shall  have 
nothing  to  say,  but  shall  confine  myself  to  a  brief  con- 
sideration of  facts  that  are  known  to  be  authentic  and 
to  conclusions  that  may  be  accepted  as  most  probable. 

The  Age  of  Iron,  even  according  to  those  who  claim 
a  great  antiquity  for  our  race,  was  posterior  to  the 
alleged  Age  of  Bronze.  But  when  in  European  coun- 
tries was  the  Age  of  Bronze  ushered  in,  and  when  did 

'  Quoted  in  the  Revue  des  Questions  scientifiques,  p.  256,  July, 
1880. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN    RACE.  275 

it  close  ?  A  satisfactory  answer  to  this  question  is  of 
paramount  importance,  because  it  is  the  pivot  on 
which  turns  much  of  the  controversy  regarding  the 
antiquity  of  man. 

What  has  just  been  stated  regarding  the  bronze  traf- 
fic of  Phoenician  traders,  together  with  what  history 
tells  us  concerning  the  mining  for  tin  by  the  Phceni- 
cians  in  the  Cassiterides,  and  possibly  also  in  Spain, 
supplies  us  with  a  key  for  the  solution  of  all  apparent 
difficulties. 

The  period  of  commercial  prosperity  for  Phoenicia, 
when  her  ships — those  famous  "ships  of  Tarshish  " 
— .sailed  all  known  seas,  and  her  merchants  carried 
on  traffic  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  most  distant 
lands,  and  even  with  those  of  far-off  Scandinavia,  it  is 
thought  extended  approximately  from  the  twelfth  to 
the  fifth  century  before  the  Christian  era.  And  this  is 
the  epoch,  according  to  the  latest  and  most  reliable 
researches,  during  which  the  many  objects  of  bronze, 
mostly  of  Phoenician  design  and  manufacture,  there  is 
reason  to  believe,  were  distributed  over  Western,  Cen- 
tral, and  Northern  Europe.  This  would  place  the  so- 
called  Bronze  Age  in  the  neighborhood  of  1000  years 
B.  c.  But  this  probably  is  assigning  it  a  maximum 
antiquity.  From  observations  made  on  alluvial  de- 
posits at  the  mouth  of  the  Loire,  M.  Kerviler  fixes  the 
beginning  of  the  Bronze  Age  at  500  b.  c.  The  strati- 
fication of  the  alluvium  at  this  point  indicates  in  the 
most  remarkable  way  the  annual  rate  of  accretion,  and 
furnishes  the  nearest  approach  to  a  reliable  geologic 
chronometer  of  anything  yet  discovered.  For  this 
reason,  and  because  they  agree  so  well  witli  tlie  teach- 
ings of  history,  we  may  regard  M.  Kerviler' s  conclu- 


276  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

sions  as  approximately  correct.*  According  to  the 
Danish  archaeologist  Worsaae  it  did  not  terminate  in 
Denmark  until  a.  d.  200.  Bertrand  tells  us  that  it 
prevailed  in  Germany  until  the  fourth  century  after 
Christ,  and  in  Ireland  it  is  known  to  have  lasted  until 
the  eighth  or  ninth  century.^ 

Impossibility  of  Fixing  Dates  of  the  Three 
Ages. 

As  to  the  Iron  Age  in  Scandinavia,  it  belonged,  if 
we  are  to  credit  two  of  the  ablest  authorities  on  the 
subject,  Desor  and  Worsaae,  to  the  fourth  and  sixth 
centuries  after  Christ.  The  Age  of  Iron  in  Gaul  dates 
back  to  a  much  earlier  period,  probably  to  the  fourth 
century  before  our  era.  This  is  about  the  time  when 
the  Gauls,  properly  so  called,  crossed  the  Rhine  and 
the  Alps  and  made  themselves  masters  of  Eastern 
France,  then  occupied  by  the  Celts.  Judging  from  the 
finds  in  the  celebrated  necropolis  of  Hallstatt,  the  Iron 
Age  began  in  Austria  one  or  two  centuries  earlier. 

The  Stone  Age  terminated  in  Denmark,  according 
to  Worsaae,  about  500  or  600  b.  c.  This,  however, 
may  be  questioned,  because  stone,  as  is  well  known, 
continued  in  use  in  Asia  Minor  imtil  700  b.  c,  and  in 
many  parts  of  Western  Europe,  as  we  have  already 
learned,  until  a  much  later  period.  As  the  result  of 
an  extended  series  of  observations  made  on  the  alluvial 
deposits  of  the  valley  of  the  Saone,  M.  de  Ferry  attrib- 

'  Southall's  Epoch  of  the  Mavinioth,  chap.  xxiv. 

^  According  to  Siegfried  ^Mittler,  in  his  Merkbuch  Alter- 
thumer  Aufziigraben,  the  introduction  of  metals  into  Europe 
does  not  antedate  the  fifth  century  B.  c. 


THE  AGE  OF  THE   HUMAN  RACE.  277 

utes  to  the  Stone  Age  an  antiquity  of  nine  or  ten 
thousand  years.  From  similar  observations  the  dis- 
tinguished French  archseologist,  M.  Arcelin,  obtains 
for  the  Stone  Age  an  antiquity  of  from  six  thousand 
seven  hundred  to  eight  thousand  years.  These  figures 
closely  agree  with  those  which  historians  assign  for 
the  beginning  of  the  civilizations  of  Egypt  and  Meso- 
potamia. They  are,  however,  in  opposition  to  those 
derived  from  the  generally  accepted  chronology  of  the 
Bible,  unless,  indeed,  we  admit,  as  it  seems  we  may, 
the  existence  of  antediluvian  man  in  Europe,  and 
allow  further  that  he  escaped  the  great  cataclysm 
known  as  the  Noachian  Deluge.^  It  seems  impossible 
otherwise  to  account  for  the  existence  in  Europe  of 
the  Basques  and  Finns,  whose  peculiar  ethnological 
position  separates  them  entirely  from  the  Aryan  or 
Japhetic  branch  of  the  human  family.  Regarding 
them  of  Adamic  instead  of  Noachic  descent,  and  ad- 
mitting that  they,  as  the  precursors  in  Europe  of  the 
Celts  and  Gauls,  escaped  the  devastating  waters  of  the 
Flood,  we  have  no  difficulty,  as  we  shall  see  in  the 
sequel,  in  reconciling  even  the  high  figures  of  prehis- 
toric archaeology  with  those  of  scriptural  chronology. 

But  the  fact  is,  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  arrive  at 
anything  even  approximating  exact  dates  for  any  of 
the  three  ages.  They  are,  as  we  have  seen,  different 
for  different  peoples.  In  some  parts  of  the  world  we 
have  only  one  age  represented,  in  others  two,  in  others 
still  all  three.  Sometimes  they  occur  in  succession, 
more  frequently  they  overlap  one  another,  very  often 

'  See  the  author's  article  on  this  subject  in  the  American 
Ecclesiastical  Review  for  February,  1893. 


2/8  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

they  are  synchronous.  For  this  reason,  therefore,  to 
construct  a  system  of  chronology  based  on  the  imple- 
ments of  stone,  bronze,  and  iron  that  have  been  used 
by  man  in  the  prehistoric  past  is,  at  least  in  the  present 
state  of  science,  clearly  impracticable. 

Relics  of  Primitive  Man. 

What  has  been  said  of  the  futility  of  all  attempts  to 
arrive  at  a  system  of  chronology  based  on  the  various 
objects  of  human  industry  to  which  we  have  referred 
obviously  applies  with  equal  force  to  the  skulls  and 
other  bones  of  primitive  man  that  have  attracted  so 
much  attention  during  the  past  few  decades.  They 
can  no  more  than  the  implements  of  stone  and  bronze 
and  iron  so  far  discovered  be  accepted  as  evidence  of 
the  great  antiquity  of  the  human  race.  Referring 
to  the  Canstatt  and  Neanderthal  skulls,  about  which 
so  much  has  been  written,  and  the  numerous  theories 
based  on  them.  Dr.  Brinton,  one  of  the  most  compe- 
tent of  American  archseologists,  well  observes  that 
"it  should  be  recognized,  once  for  all,  that  there  is 
no  sort  of  foundation  for  these  dreams.  In  neither 
instance  did  the  locality  in  which  these  skulls  were 
found  guarantee  them  any  high  antiquity."  The  same 
views  were  expressed  at  the  meeting,  August,  1892,  of 
the  German  Anthropological  Association  "by  such 
speakers  as  Von  Holder,  Virchow,  Kollman,  and  Fraas. 
Their  arguments  leave  no  room  to  doubt  the  importance 
of  these  remains."  ^ 

Of  the  tumuli  and  megalithic  monuments  of  Europe, 

'  "  Current  Notes  on  Anthropology,"  in  Science  for  February 
10,  1893. 


THE   AGE   OF  THE   HUMAN   RACE.  2/9 

which  have  been  thought  to  argue  so  great  an  antiquity 
for  man,  it  will  suffice  to  state  here  that,  on  closer  ex- 
amination, objects  of  bronze  and  relics  of  the  Roman 
period  have  been  found  in  many  of  them.  Even  in 
the  oldest  of  them,  in  those  that  archaeologists  were 
wont  to  consider  as  belonging  to  the  Stone  Age,  iron 
is  of  frequent  occurrence.  Hence  it  is  safe  to  affirm 
that  most  of  these  structures,  far  from  having  the 
great  age  so  often  attributed  to  them,  postdate  the 
Christian  era,  and  in  some  instances  by  several  cen- 
turies. 

The  shell-mounds  or  kitchen-middings  that  are 
found  in  various  parts  of  America  and  Europe,  espe- 
cially on  the  eastern  coast  of  Denmark,  are  likewise 
often  appealed  to  as  evidence  of  the  great  age  of  our 
species.  Since,  however,  objects  of  bronze  and  iron 
and  articles  of  undoubted  Roman  workmanship  have 
been  found  in  many  of  them,  most  archaeologists  have 
been  forced  to  admit  for  them  a  much  more  recent 
date,  and  to  allow  them  "to  be  taken  out  of  the  cat- 
egory of  the  evidences  for  the  antiquity  of  man." 

About  forty  years  ago  special  attention  was  directed 
by  Dr.  Keller  to  the  palafittes  or  lake-dwellings  of 
Switzerland.  They  were  at  once  seized  upon  as  proof 
positive  of  the  venerable  antiquity  of  man.  Prof  L, 
Agassiz,  in  referring  to  them  some  years  after  their 
discovery,  did  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  "humanity 
is  now  connected  with  geological  phenomena."  Fur- 
ther investigation,  however,  disclosed,  even  in  the 
oldest  of  the  lake-dwellings,  traces  of  copper  and 
bronze,  thtis  showing  that  they  belonged  to  a  recent 
epoch.  Then,  too,  it  was  pointed  out  that  the  Roman 
soldiers   under   Trajan   must   have  encountered  pile- 


28o  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

dwellers  on  the  lakes  of  Austria  or  on  the  Danube, 
as  they  are  represented  on  the  celebrated  triumphal 
column  of  Trajan  in  Rome.  It  was  remembered  also 
that  both  Herodotus  and  Hippocrates  expressly 
mention  lacustrine  villages  as  existing  in  their 
day.  The  former  tells  of  pile-dwellers  who  lived  on 
Lake  Prasias  in  Macedonia;  the  latter  describes  a 
similar  settlement  on  the  Phasis  in  Asia  Minor.  Still 
later  and  more  careful  researches  showed  conclusively 
that  lake-dwellings  in  various  parts  of  Europe  were 
inhabited  during  the  Middle  Ages.  In  Switzerland 
there  is  incontestable  evidence  of  their  being  occupied 
as  late  as  the  sixth  century  of  our  era.  M.  Chantre 
has  proved  that  in  France  "there  existed  lacustrine 
habitations  down  to  the  Carlovingian  epoch."  In  the 
north  of  Europe,  we  are  told  by  Prof.  Virchow,  they 
were  in  existence  as  late  as  the  tenth  or  the  eleventh 
century,  whilst  in  Ireland,  under  the  name  of  crmi- 
noges^  they  are  known  to  have  been  occupied  as  late 
as  the  sixteenth  century.  More  than  this,  they  are 
still  found  in  various  parts  of  the  world — in  equa- 
torial Africa,  in  the  islands  of  the  Pacific,  in  Vene- 
zuela, in  New  Guinea,  in  Borneo,  and  elsewhere.  But 
yet  more  remarkable  is  the  fact  that  "the  fishermen 
of  Lake  Prasias  still  inhabit  wooden  cottages  over 
water,  as  in  the  days  of  Herodotus."  ' 

In  view  of  all  these  facts  we  may  heartily  endorse 
the  words  of  Mr.  W.  H.  Holmes  of  the  Smithsonian 
Institution  when  he  says  that  "the  whole  discussion 
of  early  man  has  been  so  surcharged  with  misconcep- 
tions of  fact  and  errors  of  interpretation  that  all  is 
vitiated  as  a  stream  with  impurities  about  its  source. 
^  The  Epoch  of  the  Mammoth,  p.  60. 


THE  AGE  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE.       28 1 

Until  an  exhaustive  scientific  study  of  the  origin, 
form,  genesis,  and  meaning  of  all  the  handiwork  of 
man  made  use  of  in  the  discussion  is  completed  the 
discussion  of  man  and  culture  is  worse  than  useless, 
and  speculation  can  lead  but  to  embarrassment  and 
disaster."  ' 

Geological  Chronometers. 

^  The  great  difficulty,  as  already  intimated,  experi- 
enced by  scientists  in  arriving  at  accordant  conclu- 
sions respecting  the  antiquity  of  our  species  arises 
from  the  total  lack  of  anything  approaching  a  reliable 

V  natural  chronometer.  The  most  satisfactory  one  so 
far  known  is,  as  has  been  said,  that  discovered  at  St. 
Nazaire  by  the  French  engineer,  M.  Kerviler.  But 
this  has  been  either  ignored  or  rejected  as  unavailable 
by  the  new  school  of  prehistorians,  "because,"  as 
Canon  Hamard  shrewdly  observes,  "it  labors  under 
the  grave  inconvenience  of  harmonizing  too  closely 
with  the  traditional  chronology."  ^  The  futile  at- 
tempts to  estimate  time  by  the  rate  of  growth  of 
peat  or  the  deposition  of  alluvium  or  the  formation 
of  stalagmites  we  have  already  considered.  Argu- 
ments based  on  certain  lava  deposits,  on  the  rate  of 
growth  of  coral-reefs  or  erosion  of  rocks,  or  on  the 
former  extension  of  glaciers  over  portions  of  Europe 
and  America,  are  equally  worthless.  As  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  utter  insufficiency  of  any  of  the  various 
methods  employed  by  men  of  science  in  evaluating 

*  *'  Gravel  Man  and  Palaeolithic  Culture,"  etc.,  in  Science  for 
January  20,  1893. 

*  Dictiontiaire  apologetiqtie,  art.  "  Chronometres  naturels." 


282  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   I-AITH. 

geologic  time,  and  of  the  widely-different  results  to 
which  such  methods  may  give  rise,  I  shall  instance 
the  chronometer  to  which  geologists  most  frequently 
appeal,  and  which  is  regarded  by  the  majority  of  them 
as  the  most  reliable  time-measurer  which  they,  thus 
far,  have  at  their  disposal. 

The  chronometer  in  question  is  the  well-known 
gorge  between  Niagara  Falls  and  Queenstown.  As- 
suming that  the  entire  gorge  from  Lake  Ontario  to 
Niagara  has  been  eroded  by  the  gradually-receding 
cataract,  and  assuming  further,  as  all  glacialists  do, 
that  the  birth  of  the  falls  dates  from  the  retrogression 
of  the  great  ice-sheet  that  enveloped  this  portion  of 
territory  during  the  Glacial  Period,  the  problem  is  to 
determine  the  amount  of  time  that  has  been  required 
for  the  formation  of  this  gorge,  and  to  estimate  the 
number  of  years  that  have  elapsed  since  the  close  of 
the  Ice  Age  at  this  point. 

It  is  perfectly  manifest  that  if  we  could  ascertain 
the  rate  of  recession  of  the  falls  the  problem  would 
become  a  very  simple  one  indeed.  ^AU  that  would 
then  be  necessary  would  be  to  divide  the  length  of 
the  gorge — about  seven  miles — by  the  rate  of  recession 
per  annum. 

But  two  grave  difficulties  present  themselves.  It  is 
not,  in  the  first  place,  certain  that  the  entire  gorge  is 
the  result  of  post-glacial  action.  On  the  contrary, 
there  are  many  able  glacialists  who  contend  that  a 
portion  of  the  ravine  was  eroded  before  the  Glacial 
Period,  and  that  we  have,  as  yet,  no  means  of  knowing 
just  how  much  of  the  work  has  been  done  since  the 
torrent  of  Niagara  began  to  pour  over  its  escarpment 
at  Queenstown.     In  the  second  place,  in  spite  of  the 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  283 

numerous  attempts  to  determine  the  rate  of  recession 
of  the  falls,  the  most  conflicting  results  have  been 
reached,  and  that,  too,  by  those  who,  we  should  think, 
were  most  competent  to  grapple  with  the  problem. 

According  to  the  distinguished  Swiss  geologist, 
Desor,  the  rate  of  recession  of  the  falls  is  not  more 
than  one  foot  in  a  century.  This  would  carry  back 
the  date  when  this  grand  chronometer  was  first  set 
going  full  three  million  five  hundred  thousand  years. 
Sir  Charles  Lyell  estimated  the  maximum  rate  of 
erosion  to  be  one  foot  per  annum,  and  fixed  the  be- 
ginning of  the  cataract  at  thirty-five  thousand  years 
ago.  The  English  geologist,  Bakewell,  together  with 
other  careful  observers,  calculated  the  rate  of  retro- 
gression to  be  two  or  three  feet  a  year.  Mr.  C.  K. 
Gilbert,  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  and 
Mr.  R.  S.  Woodward  of  Washington,  as  the  result  of 
very  careful  measurements  determined  the  average 
rate  of  recession  to  be  five  feet  per  annum.  Hence, 
Mr.  Gilbert,  who  is  universally  recognized  as  one  of 
the  most  careful  and  reliable  of  observers  and  one  of 
the  most  eminent  authorities  in  such  matters,  does  not 
hesitate  to  declare  that  the  "maximum  length  of  time 
since  the  birth  of  the  falls  by  the  separation  of  the 
lakes  is  only  seven  thousand  years,  and  that  even  this 
small  measure  may  need  significant  reduction." 

An  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  conclusions  arrived 
at  by  Gilbert  and  Woodward  is  the  remarkable  man- 
ner in  which  they  agree  with  the  results  obtained  by 
other  observers  by  the  employment  sometimes  of  simi- 
lar, and  sometimes  of  different,  methods  of  com- 
putation. 

If  the  beginning  of  Niagara  Falls  marks,  as  has  been 


284  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

assumed,  the  disappearance  of  the  great  ice-sheet  at 
this  point,  it  is  but  natural  to  infer  that  observations 
made  at  other  cataracts  in  the  same  or  nearly  the  same 
latitude  would  indicate,  at  least  approximately,  the 
same  date  for  the  close  of  the  Glacial  Period.  Thus, 
according  to  Professor  Winchell,  the  average  rate  of 
recession  of  the  Falls  of  St.  Anthony  since  they  first 
started  at  Fort  Snelling,  a  little  over  eight  miles  below 
the  present  cataract,  has  been  a  trifle  more  than  five 
and  a  half  feet  per  year.  This  would  fix  the  date  of 
the  birth  of  the  falls  at  Fort  Snelling  at  7803  years. 
A  detailed  study  of  divers  minor  waterfalls  and  gorges 
in  Ohio  by  Professor  Wright  fully  sustains  the  calcula- 
tions regarding  the  falls  of  St.  Anthony  and  Niagara. 
After  carefully  examining  Lake  Lahontan  in  Nevada 
and  Lake  Bonneville  in  Utah — two  bodies  of  water 
which  M.  de  Lapparent  aptly  designates  as  fossil  phi- 
vio7neters — Gilbert  and  Russell  regard  ten  thousand 
years  as  the  maximum  of  duration  for  the  Post-Glacial 
Epoch.  By  a  study  of  the  modified  drift  in  the  Con- 
necticut Valley  a  like  estimate  is  obtained.  From  ob- 
servations which  he  made  concerning  the  average  rate 
at  which  the  waters  of  Lake  Michigan  are  eroding  its 
banks  and  washing  the  sediment  into  deeper  water, 
Dr.  E.  Andrews  of  Chicago  concludes  that  the  lakes 
which  date  from  the  Glacial  Period  cannot  have  been 
in  existence  more  than  seventy-five  hundred  years. 
M.  Arcelin  arrives  at  precisely  the  same  result  by  the 
study  of  the  alluvial  deposits  of  the  Saone.  Calcula- 
tions based  on  lakes  and  kettle-holes  in  New  England 
and  the  North-west  all  lead  to  identical  conclusions. 

It   seems,  therefore,   demonstrably  certain   that  the 
age  of  the  chronometers  just  referred  to  is  much  less 


THE  AGE  OF  THE    HUMAN   RACE.  285 

than  certain  even  eminent  j^eologists  have  imagined. 
We  hence  infer  that  the  Ice  Age,  far  from  having  the 
antiquity  so  often  attributed  to  it,  is  of  quite  recent 
date.  The  same  must  then  be  said  of  man,  whose  ad- 
vent was  probably  synchronous  with  the  latter  portion 
of  the  reign  of  ice.  It  is  consequently  impossible  for 
the  gorges,  lake-basins,  and  kettle-holes  which  we 
have  been  considering  to  "  have  existed  for  the  indef- 
inite periods  sometimes  said  to  have  elapsed  since  the 
Glacial  Era,  while  eternity  itself  is  scarcely  long 
enough  for  the  development  of  species  if  the  rate  of 
change  is  no  greater  than  is  implied  if  man  and  his 
companions,  both  of  the  animal  and  vegetable  king- 
doms, were  substantially  what  they  now  are  as  long 
ago  as  the  date  often  assigned  to  the  great  Ice 
Age."^ 

Age  of  the  Earth. 

It  is  because  it  has  fancied  that  it  has  unlimited 
time  at  its  disposal,  that  it  has  almost  "  eternity  itself" 
to  draw  on,  that  the  evolutionary  school,  "  imder  the 
influence  of  Darwinian  prejudices,"  has  handled  time 
with  such  a  strange  laxity,  and  has  talked  of  the  mil- 
lions of  years  that  must  be  attributed  to  even  the 
shortest  of  the  geologic  periods. 

According  to  the  Uniformitarian  school  of  geologists, 
the  origin  of  life  upon  the  earth  must  be  referred  back 
full  five  hundred  million  years.  As  the  result  of  cer- 
tain calculations  regarding  the  rate  of  erosion  of  the 
earth's  surface  and  of  the  deposition  of  sedimentary 
rocks,  the  Rev.  H.  N.  Hutchinson  thinks  that  no  less 
*  Wright's  Great  Ice  Age  in  North  America,  chap.  xx. 


286  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

than  six  hundred  million  years  have  been  required  for 
the  formation  of  the  known  stratified  rocks  of  the 
earth's  crust/  To  accomplish  this  same  work  Sir 
Archibald  Geike  requires  a  period  lasting  somewhere 
between  seventy-three  million  and  six  hundred  and 
eighty  millions  of  years.  ^  Professor  Samuel  Haughton 
requires  ' '  for  the  whole  duration  of  geological  time  a 
minimum  of  two  hundred  million  years."  T.  Mel- 
lard  Reade's  estimate  is  ninety-five  millions.  Dana 
places  the  earth's  age  since  the  formation  of  the  first 
fossiliferous  rock  sat  forty-eight  million  years.  Alfred 
Russell  Wallace  reduces  the  figure  to  twenty-eight  mil- 
lions. Mr.  C.  D.  Walcott,  as  the  result  of  a  study  of  the 
sedimentary  rocks  of  a  restricted  area  of  the  Western 
portion  of  the  United  States,  opines  that  the  time 
which  has  elapsed  since  the  Archaean  Era  has  been 
about  forty-five  million  years.  Professor  Warren  Up- 
ham  thinks  that  "the  time  needed  for  the  deposition 
of  the  earth's  stratified  rocks  and  the  unfolding  of  its 
plant  and  animal  life  must  be  about  a  hundred  million 
years."  Mr.  W.  J.  McGee,  reasoning  from  the  same 
premises,  demands  seven  billions  of  years  for  this  por- 
tion of  the  earth's  duration,  and  twice  this  amount  of 
time  for  the  period  that  has  elapsed  since  it  began 
its  existence  as  a  planet.^  In  the  first  edition  of 
his  Origin  of  Species^  Darwin  claimed  three  hundred 
and  six  million  six  hundred  and  sixty-two  thousand 
four  hundred  years  for  "  the  denudation  of  the  Weald," 
which  he  informed  us  was  "a  mere  trifle  "  in  compar- 
ison with  that  which  was  requisite  for  the  establishing 

'  Knozvledge,  September,  1893. 

*  Nature,  August  4,  1892. 

'  Aynerican  Anthropologist,  October,  1892. 


THE   AGE  OF  THE   HUMAN   RACE.  287 

of  his  theory.  These  are  large  figures,  it  is  true,  but 
they  are  still  small  beside  the  "  milliards  of  thousands 
of  years"  which  Hackel  assures  us  have  elapsed  since 
man's  original  ancestor — the  primal,  self-created  mon- 
eron — appeared  on  this  globe  of  ours. 

Unfortunately,  however,  for  geologists  and  biologists 
who  worship  at  the  altar  of  Chronos,  mathematicians 
and  physicists  and  astronomers  have  interposed  a  strong 
demurrer  against  the  assumption  of  such  countless 
aeons,  and  have  shown  cause  why  their  demurrer 
should  stand. 

According  to  computations  made  long  ago  by  Sir 
William  Thomson — now  Lord  Kelvin — and  based  on 
a  study  of  the  earth's  internal  heat  and  its  rate  of  rad- 
iation into  space,  the  whole  of  geologic  time  must  be 
limited  within  a  period  of  one  hundred  million  years. 
Proceeding  from  similar  data,  Professor  Tait  affirms 
that  if  the  earth  existed  at  all  one  hundred  million 
years  ago,  it  was  in  a  fluid  condition  and  at  a  white 
heat,  and  concludes  that  it  is  impossible  to  allow  geol- 
ogists "  more  scope  for  their  speculation  than  about  ten 
million,  or  say,  at  most,  fifteen,  millions  of  years."  ^ 

The  distinguished  French  astronomer,  Faye,  in  his 
profound  work  Sur  V  Origine  dii  Mondc^^  and  Prof.  S. 
Newcomb,  hold  substantially  the  same  views.  The  latter 
says  in  reference  to  this  subject:  "  If  we  reflect  that  a 

^  Recent  Advances  in  Physical  Science.  The  distinguished 
French  geologist,  M.  de  Lapparent,  in  referring  to  the  compu- 
tations of  geologists  and  physicists,  remarks:  "  Contentons- 
nous  de  ces  resultats  et  admettons  qu'il  ne  soit  pas  deraisonable 
de  renfermer  entre  20  et  100  million  d'annee?  le  temps  neces- 
saires  au  d^pot  de  tous  les  terrains  de  sediment." — Traits  de 
GSologie,  p.  1468. 

^  Chap.  xiv. 


288  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

diminution  of  the  solar  heat  by  less  than  one-fourth  its 
amount  would  probably  make  our  earth  so  cold  that  all 
the  water  on  its  surface  would  freeze,  while  an  increase 
by  much  more  than  one-half  would  probably  boil  the 
water  all  away,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  balance 
of  causes  which  would  result  in  the  sun  radiating  heat 
just  fast  enough  to  preserve  the  earth  in  its  present 
state  has  probably  not  existed  more  than  ten  millions 
years. ' '  ^ 

Mr.  George  H.  Darwin,  professor  of  Mathematics  in 
Cambridge  University,  by  computing  the  influence  of 
tidal  friction  in  retarding  the  rotation  of  the  earth, 
arrives  at  the  conclusion  that  fifty-seven  millions  years 
ago  the  length  of  the  day  was  less  than  seven  hours, 
that  the  moon  was  only  one-seventh  of  its  present  dis- 
tance from  the  earth,  whilst  the  time  of  a  lunar  revo- 
lution was  but  a  trifle  more  than  a  day  and  a  half. 
Such  a  condition  of  things  as  Ball  has  pointed  out  would 
suppose,  if  there  were  then  any  water  on  the  earth's 
surface,  the  existence  of  tides  six  hundred  feet  high, 
sweeping  around  the  world  every  four  hours  and  utterly 
destructive  of  every  form  of  animal  or  vegetable  life. 

From  a  long  series  of  careful  experiments  on  the 
rock  diabase  in  its  relations  to  heat  and  pressure,  Clar- 
ence King,  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey, 
computes  the  entire  age  of  the  earth  from  the  begin- 
ning of  its  planetary  existence  to  be  not  more  than 
twenty-four  million  years. ^  Accepting  as  true  Lord 
Kelvin's  conclusions  regarding  the  age  of  the  sun,  as 
given  in  a  lecture  at  the  Royal  Institution  of  Great 
Britain  some  years  ago.  Sir  J.  W.  Dawson  reduces  "the 

'  Popular  Astrotiomy,  p.  511. 

*  The  American  Journal  of  Sciefice,  January,  1893. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN   RACE.  289 

whole  of  geological  time  since  the  formation  of  the 
oldest  Laiirentian  rocks"  to  about  six  million  years, 
or  possibly  less,'  and  concludes  that  the  facts  both 
of  geology  and  astronomy  beautifully  "harmonize  in 
point  of  time  with  those  of  the  Bible  history." 

Fantastical  Theories. 

Another  great  source  of  error  has  been  the  disposi- 
tion of  geologists  to  build  theories  on  trifles  and  to 
draw  conclusions  from  facts  but  partially  or  imper- 
fectly observed.  Thus  from  a  few  flint  flakes  discov- 
ered in  France  and  Portugal,  M.  de  Mortillet  does  not 
hesitate  to  deduce  an  argument  for  the  existence  of 
Tertiary  man,  or  for  that  of  some  intelligent  being 
who  was  man's  predecessor,  to  whom  he  assigns  an 
antiquity  of  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  million  of  years. 
On  more  careful  examination,  however,  these  flints  are 
proven  by  the  most  eminent  authorities — Virchow  and 
Evans  among  others — to  have  been  produced  by  the 
operation  of  natural  causes — by  solar  heat  or  accidental 
percussion,  for  instance — and  to  afford  no  evidence 
whatever  of  the  action  of  man  or  other  intelligent 
being.  The  flint  flakes,  bulbs,  or  conchoids  of  per- 
cussion, as  they  are  sometimes  called,  on  which  M. 
de  Mortillet  bases  his  fanciful  hypotheses  are  num- 
bered by  hundreds  of  thousands.  If  he  could  demon- 
strate that  they  were  fashioned  by  human  hands,  and 
were  not  the  product  of  natural  forces,  he  would,  con- 
sidering the  number  of  specimens  at  his  disposal,  have 
a  very  strong  argument  indeed.  This  he  is  unable  to 
do.    There  are  others,  again,  who  are  prepared  to  make 

'  Modem  Science  in  Bible  Lands,  p.  175. 
19 


290  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND    FAITH. 

a  profession  of  faith  regarding  the  existence  of  Ter- 
tiary man  on  much  slighter  evidence.  Tico  flint  flakes, 
such  as  tho.se  just  instanced,  are  offered  by  Boyd  Daw- 
kins  as  evidence  of  the  existence  of  Tertiary  man  in 
England.  Ci'cdat  Apelles  JiidcFiis  !  A  few  years  ago 
a  bone  was  found  in  one  of  the  English  caves  under 
glacial  clay,  and  pronounced  by  .some  of  the  best-known 
scientists  of  the  day  to  be  a  human  fibula,  and  to  be 
therefore  a  certain  indication  of  the  existence  of  man 
in  Pre-Glacial  times.  The  bone  was  subsequently  sub- 
mitted to  a  careful  examination  by  experts,  and  pro- 
nounced to  be  that  of  a  beaj'^  or,  in  the  learned  phrase- 
ology of  the  committee,  it  was  declared  to  be  "  ursine  " 
rather  than  "human,"  while  others  equally  compe- 
tent to  diagnose  the  case  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
it  might  be  almost  any  bone.  In  like  manner  certain 
notched  or  incised  bones  have  been  adduced  as  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  of  Miocene  man.  The  incis- 
ions, it  was  argued,  were  such  as  could  be  made  only 
by  instruments  of  human  manufacture.  It  is  now 
known  that  similar  cuts  are  made  on  bones  that  have 
been  gnawed  by  the  porcupine  and  other  animals. 
Nor  is  this  all.  Sundry  sharpened  sticks  found  in  cer- 
tain Inter-Glacial  deposits  are  appealed  to  as  the  handi- 
work of  man  and  as  conclusive  evidence  of  the  great 
antiquity  of  the  human  race.  But  scarcely  is  this 
ingenious  theory  advanced  when  it  is  shown  that  simi- 
lar sharpened  sticks  can  be  and  have  been  fashioned  by 
beavers.'  From  a  number  of  rudely-flaked  stones  found 
in  the  gravel-beds  of  Trenton,  Dr.  C.  C.  Abbott  builds 
up  an  ingenious  theory  regarding  the  existence  of  a 
race  of  men  of  peculiar  culture  in  the  Delaware  Val- 

'  Epoch  of  the  Mammoth,  pp.  407,  408. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN    RACK.  29 1 

ley  in  Glacial  times,  ten  thousand  or  more  years  ago. 
Mr.  Holmes  makes  a  critical  investigation  of  these  de- 
posits and  flaked  stones  under  exceptionally  favorable 
circumstances,  and  comes  to  the  conclusion,  which  I 
heartly  endorse,  that  "the  phenomena  observed  may 
all  be  accounted  for  as  a  result  of  the  vicissitudes  of 
aboriginal  life  and  occupation  within  the  last  few  hun- 
dred vears  as  fully  and  as  satisfactorily  as  by  jumping 
thousands  of  years  backward  into  the  unknown  "  ' 

In  1857  was  discovered  near  Diisseldorf  the  famous 
Neanderthal  skull  that  occasioned  such  a  flutter  of  ex- 
citement in  the  scientific  world.  Prof.  Schaff'hausen 
adjudged  it  to  be  "the  most  ancient  memorial  of  the 
early  inhabitants  of  Europe."  Prof.  Fuhlrott  wrote 
a  book  on  it  in  which  he  declared  the  age  of  the  relic 
to  be  from  two  hundred  to  three  hundred  thousand 
years.  But  this  estimate  was  soon  proven  to  be  as 
extravagant  as  it  was  unwarranted.  Dr.  Mayer,  of 
Bonn,  as  the  result  of  a  critical  examination  of  the 
"fossil"  and  the  locality  in  which  it  was  found,  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  the  skull  of  a  Cossack 
killed  in   1814  ! 

Truly  while  examining  some  of  the  evidence  pre- 
sented by  geolgists  in  favor  of  the  antiquity  of  man 
one  cannot  help  saying  with  Goethe:  "The  thing  the' 
most  terrible  to  hear  is  the  constantly  reiterated  assur- 
ance that  geologists  agree  on  a  given  point."  For  one 
who  knows  men  it  is  easy  to  divine  what  this  means. 
Person-,  of  vivid  and  bold  imaginations  take  posses- 
sion of  an  idea  and  give  it  all  the  appearance  of  prob- 
ability.    They  soon  have  followers  and  disciples,  and 

*  "Glacial  Man  in  the  Trenton  GravelvS,"  in  the  Joiirnal of 
Geology,  vol.  i.,  1893,  p.  32. 


292  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

when  these  are  somewhat  niiineroiis  tliey  are  always 
looked  upon  as  possessing  special  authority  in  science. 
Hundreds  of  educated  men,  occupied  with  other  duties, 
are  satisfied  to  leave  to  these  adventurous  explorers  their 
chosen  domain,  and  to  give  their  approbation  to  all 
that  does  not  affect  them  individually.  This  is  what 
is  called  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  learned.' 

How  applicable  to  the  fantasies  and  idle  babble,  the 
seethings  of  brain  and  the  vibrations  of  nerve  of  some 
of  our  modern  scientists  are  the  following  lines  of  a 
contemporary  versificator! — 

"  Oh  the  thoughts,  the  revelations  of  our  age  that  lie  enshrined 

in  the  caldron  of  man's  mind  ! 
How  they  seethe,  how  they  simmer,  how  they  swim,  and  how 

the}'  swirl, 
How  they  wriggle,  how  they  wrestle,  how  they  whisk,  and 

how  they  whirl!" 

^  Baumner's  Kreuzzeugeii,  i.  p.  70,  "Goethe  als  Naturfor-- 
scher." 


CHAPTER  IV. 

the  antiquity  of  man  according  to  the  bible. 
Biblical  Chronology  Undecided. 

AFTER  a  long  and  tedious,  but  nevertheless  neces- 
sary, excursion  into  the  domains  of  history,  as- 
tronomy, physical  geography,  and  prehistoric  archae- 
ology, we  are  at  the  long  last  prepared  to  discuss  the 
question  of  scriptural  chronology.  This  portion  of  our 
subject,  however,  although  fully  as  important  as  that 
which  precedes,  can,  fortunately  for  the  reader,  be  dis- 
posed of  much  more  briefly.  But  this  is  not  because 
of  any  certainty  respecting  the  data  of  biblical  chro- 
nology, nor  because  the  Church  has  rendered  any  decis- 
ion regarding  the  question  of  the  antiquity  of  our  race. 
In  some  respects  at  least  the  chronology  of  the  Bible 
is  almost  as  vague  and  as  uncertain  as  the  various 
chronologies  which  we  have  been  considering,  while 
as  regards  the  Church  she  is  committed  to  no  system  I 
of  chronology  and  has  defined  nothing  concerning  the 
antiquity  of  man.  As  the  learned  and  pious  Abbe  le 
Hir  well  observes,  "Biblical  chronology  floats  in  an 
undecided  state;  it  pertains  to  the  human  sciences  to 
determine  the  date  of  the  creation  of  our  species. 
But  let  scientists  await  irrefragable  proofs;  let  them 
avoid  exaggerations  and  illusions,  and  let  them  not 
give  as  certain  facts  that  are  only  probable  or  are  no 
facts  at  all.     When  certitude  in  this  respect  shall  have 

293 


294  ,  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

been  acquired  all  discussion  will  be  at  an  end,  because 
all  divergence  shall  have  ceased."'  Sylvester  de 
Sacy,  one  of  the  ablest  authorities  on  the  subject, 
goes  further  and  says:  "There  is  no  biblical  chronol- 
ogy." Of  substantially  the  same  opinion  are  Het- 
tinger, Valroger,  and  Lenonnant,  all  of  whom  are 
noted  for  their  learning  and  their  devotion  to  Holy 
Church.  Cardinal  Manning,  in  his  Temporal  Mission 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  expresses  the  same  view  when  he 
declares  that  "no  system  of  chronology  is  laid  down 
in  the  sacred  books." 

What  may  be  said  of  biblical  chronology  may  like- 
wise, so  far  as  the  Scriptures  are  concerned,  be  affirmed 
of  the  vexed  question  of  the  antiquity  of  man.  There 
is  nothing  certain  about  it,  and  scientists  and  apolo- 
ofists  have  therefore  all  the  latitude  in  the  discussion 
of  the  subjects  which  the  certain  facts  and  discoveries 
of  profane  science  may  demand.  "It  is  an  error  to 
believe,"  as  the  erudite  Mgr.  Meignan  truly  remarks, 
"  that  the  Catholic  faith  restricts  the  existence  of  man 
to  a  period  that  does  not  go  beyond  six  thousand 
years.  The  Church  has  never  pronounced  on  a  ques- 
tion so  delicate."  ^ 

The  difficulties  here  suggested,  contrary  to  what 
many  suppose,  are  by  no  means  new.  They  have  been 
recognized  from  the  earliest  ages  of  the  Church.  St. 
Jerome  was  so  impressed  with  their  magnitude  that  he 
abandoned  altogether  the  task  of  establishing  a  system 
of  chronology  for  the  Old  Testament.*     And  the  dif- 

'  Etudes  RHJgieuses,  p.  511.  ^  P.  165. 

^  Le  Monde  et  V Homme  primitif  selon  la  Bible,  p.  163. 
*  ••  Ejusmodi   annorum,"  he    tells    us,    "  certum    nunierum 
difficile  est  invenire,  propter  librorum  varietatem  et   errores 


THE   AGE  OF   THE    HUMAN   RACE.  295 

* 

ficulties  that  beset  all  attempts  at  fixing  the  chronology 
of  the  Bible  were  acknowledged  by  other  Fathers  and 
commentators  as  well  as  by  St.  Jerome.  More  than  a 
century  and  a  half  ago  Des  Vignoles  in  his  learned 
work  on  the  Chronology  of  Sacred  History  tells  us 
that  he  collected  upward  of  two  hundred  different  cal- 
culations, the  shortest  of  which  gives  but  thirty-three 
hundred  and  eighty-three  years  from  the  creation  of 
the  world '  to  the  birth  of  Christ,  whilst  the  longest 
reckons  sixty-nine  hundred  and  eighty-four  years. 
This  makes  a  difference  of  thirty-five  centuries.  And 
Des  Vignoles  did  not  take  account  of  all  the  chrono- 
logical calculations  which  have  been  made,  but  only  of 
the  principal  ones.  D'Ortous  de  Mairan,  a  distin- 
guished astronomer  of  the  last  century,  arrived  at  a 
similar  result.  Having  examined  seventy-five  distinct 
chronological  systems,  he  found  that  the  lowest  esti- 
mate placed  the  date  of  the  creation  of  the  world 
at  3700  years  b.  c,  while  the  highest  fixed  it  at  7000 
years.  Since  his  time  the  number  of  systems  of  bib- 
lical chronology  which  have  been  excogitated  and  pro- 

inolitos  ;  aitt  si  invenimus  magno  studio  et  labore,  nihil 
profutura  cognoscas." 

'  The  majority  of  chronologists  until  the  present  century 
confounded  the  time  of  the  creation  of  the  world  with  that  of 
the  creation  of  man,  because  they  were  of  the  opinion  that 
the  one  was  separated  from  the  other  by  only  six  days  of 
twenty-four  hours  each.  According  to  Dr.  John  Lightfoot, 
Vice-chancellor  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  and  an  emi- 
nent rabbinical  scholar  of  the  seventeenth  century,  "heaven 
and  earth,  centre  and  circumference,  were  created  all  together, 
in  the  same  instant,  and  clouds  full  of  water,"  and  "  this  work 
took  place  and  man  was  created  by  the  Trinity  on  October  2^, 
4004  B.  c,  at  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning." 


296  BIBLE,   SCIENXE,  AND   FAITH. 

mulgated  has  greatly  augmented.  During  the  past 
few  decades  especially  scriptural  scholars  have  been 
unusually  active  in  their  endeavors  to  clear  up  at 
least  some  of  the  difficulties  that  have  so  long  puzzled 
chronologists.  The  discoveries  of  Assyriologists  and 
Egyptologists  have  thrown  a  flood  of  light  on  many 
disputed  points,  but  there  are  innumerable  problems 
which  are  yet  unsolved,,  and  which  wnll  probably 
ever  remain  as  much  of  an  enigma  as  they  are  at 
present. 

Indeed,  no  one  who  has  not  made  a  special  study  of 
questions  like  the  one  we  are  now  discussing  has  the 
faintest  conception  of  the  countless  obstacles  encoun- 
tered by  the  chronologist  in  his  particular  branch  of 
science.  A  simple  illustration  is  the  colossal  work  of  the 
Benedictines  of  Saint  Maur,  entitled  L\4rt  de  lerijicr 
les  Dates.  This  remarkable  monument  of  labor  and 
erudition  appeared  in  1750  in  a  single  quarto  volume. 
In  less  than  a  century  it  was  so  augmented  as  to  make 
no  less  than  thirty-eight  volumes. 

Nature  of  Difficulties  in  Scriptural  Chro- 
nology. 

The  causes  of  the  difficulties  and  discrepancies  oc- 
curring in  scriptural  chronology  are  manifold.  In  the 
first  place,  the  Old  Testament,  as  is  well  known, 
comes  to  us  through  three  different  channels — viz.  the 
Hebrew  text,  the  Samaritan  text,  and  the  Greek  ver- 
sion of  the  Septuagint.  In  respect  of  their  divers  chro- 
nologies these  three  sources  are  hopelessly  at  variance 
with  one  another.  Many  attempts,  it  is  true,  have 
been  made  to  reconcile  them  with  each  other,  but  they 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  297 

seem  to  be  utterly  irreconcilable.'  Nor  have  we  any 
intrinsic  reason  for  preferring  any  one  of  them  to  the 
others.     All  have  had  and  still  have  their  defenders. 

The  chief  if  not  the  only  difficulties  worth  mention- 
ing here  occur  in  the  genealogical  lists  of  the  patri- 
archs from  Adam  to  Noah  and  from  Noah  to  Abraham. 
According  to  the  Samaritan  text,  the  interval  between 
Adam  and  Noah  and  the  Deluge  amounted  to  1307 
years;  according  to  the  Hebrew,  from  which  we  obtain 
our  Vulgate,  it  was  1656,  while  according  to  the  Greek 
or  the  Septuagint  version  it  was  2242  years.  In  like 
manner,  the  time  that  elapsed  between  the  Deluge  and 
the  vocation  of  Abraham  was,  according  to  the  Samari- 
tan, Hebrew,  and  Greek  sources,  respectively,  1017, 
367,  and  1 147  years.  Thus  the  three  texts  in  the  order 
named  would  yield  2329,  "2023,  and  3389  years  for  the 
period  intervening  between  the  creation  of  Adam  and 
the  call  of  Abraham.  But  the  Septuagint  has  a  num- 
ber of  variants  in  the  genealogies  of  both  the  antedi- 
luvian and  postdiluvian  patriarchs.  For  antediluvian 
times  Eusebius  gives  a  total  of  2242  years;  Julius  Afri- 
canus,  2262;  Clement  of  Alexandria,  2148;  Josephus, 
2156.  From  the  Deluge  to  Abraham,  Eusebius  reck- 
ons 945  years;  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  936;  George 
Syncellus,  1070;  Julius  Africanus,  940;  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  1175;  Josephus,  993.  "  These  variants," 
as  Darras  well  observes,  ' '  constitute  for  the  general 
chronology  of  the  first  two  epochs  of  history  a  difficulty 
which  probably  will  never  be  solved."     The  figures, 

'  St.  Augustine  says  anent  this  matter,  De  qiiibus  ratiojieni 
aut  7uillam  aut  difficilimatn  reddunt,  and  his  words  are  as  true 
to-day  as  when  they  were  first  penned. 


298  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

however,  which  I  have  given  are  those  ordinarily 
accepted. 

A.S  a  consequence  of  these  different  elements  and 
variants  divers  figures  have  been  obtained  by  the  sup- 
putations  of  chronologers  for  the  period  that  elapsed 
between  the  creation  of  Adam  and  the  beginning  of 
our  era.  The  modern  Jews  fix  the  date  of  creation  at 
3761  years  B.  c. ;  Scaliger,  at  3950;  the  learned  Jesuit 
Petavius,  at  3983;  Usher,  at  4004;  Clinton,  at  4138; 
the  new  edition  of  the  Art  of  Verifying  Dates^  at  4963; 
Hales,  at  5411;  Jackson,  at  5426;  the  Church  of  Alex- 
andria, at  5504;  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  at 
5510;  Vossius,  at  6004;  Penvino,  at  6311;  the  Al- 
phonsine  Tables,  at  6984.  The  mean  assumed  by  the 
earlier  ecclesiastical  writers  fixes  the  date  of  the  cre- 
ation of  the  world  at  5500  years  before  our  era.  Origen 
makes  it  5000  years,  while  Eusebius  places  it  at  5300, 
and  Julius  Africanus  at  5562  years.  Adding  the  high- 
est of  these  numbers  to  1894,  the  time  since  the  com- 
ing of  Christ,  we  have,  as  the  age  of  our  race,  a  period 
that  embraces  no  less  than  9000  years. 

These  figures,  which  are  only  a  few  of  those  which 
might  be  adduced,  are  amply  sufficient  to  exhibit  the 
total  lack  of  certainty  that  obtains  in  the  chronology 
of  the  earlier  history  of  mankind. 

Owing  to  the  labors  of  Joseph  Scaliger,  who  laid 
the  foundations  of  modern  chronological  science,  the 
chronology  of  the  Hebrew  text  has  generally  prevailed 
since  the  sixteenth  century.  Before  his  time,  however, 
the  chronology  of  the  Septuagint  predominated.  Dur- 
ing the  first  six  centuries  of  our  era  it  was  used  by 
both  Greek  and  Latin  ecclesiastical  writers.  It  is  still 
employed  by  the  Greek  Church,  and  retained  in  the 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN   RACE.  299 

Roman  Marty rology,  which  places  the  date  of  the  cre- 
ation at  5199  years  before  the  coming  of  Christ. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  efforts  of  Scaliger  and  his 
followers  to  give  vogue  to  the  Hebrew  chronology,  the 
Septuagint,  even  before  the  imperative  demands  of 
modern  science  were  made,  still  counted  many  de- 
fenders among  modern  scholars.  Among  these  were 
Isaac  Vossius,  Morin,  Cappell,  the  learned  religious  of 
Citeaux,  Father  Pezron,  and  the  erudite  ecclesiastical 
historian,  Cardinal  Baronius.  The  latter,  while  fully 
recognizing  all  the  difficulties  of  the  question,  avowed 
his  preference  for  the  chronology  of  the  Septuagint  as 
being  more  in  accord  with  the  traditions  of  the  Church. 
Many  of  the  earlier  Fathers  adopted  it  for  a  similar 
reason.  They  perceived,  as  we  do  to-day,  the  impos- 
sibility of  reconciling  the  chronology  of  the  Vulgate 
with  the  histories  of  Egypt  and  Chaldea.  The  most 
distinguished  modern  advocate  of  the  Samaritan  text 
is  the  celebrated  German  Egyptologist,  Lepsius,  who 
followed  it  in  his  learned  work  on  the  Chronology  of 
the  Egyptians. 
j  For  some  unexplained  reason,  the  chronological  sys- 
tem of  Usher,  the  Protestant  archbishop  of  Armagh, 
has  found  its  way  into  the  Eii^lish  versions  of  .tbe 
Bible,  and  many  there  are  who  believe  that  the  dates 
\  given  at  the  heads  of  some  of  the  chapters  belong  to 
the  original  Scriptures,  whereas  all  students  of  Holy 
Writ  are  well  aware  that  the  inspired  authors  of  the 
\  Sacred  Record  gave  no  such  dates. 

The  Church  has  always  permitted  her  children 
full  liberty  of  opinion  regarding  the  much-contro- 
verted question  of  biblical  chronology.  The  Council 
of  Trent,  which  issued  so  many  wise  decrees  respect- 


300  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

ing  the  Canonical  Scriptures,  left  the  subject  of  the 
number  of  generations  of  patriarchs,  together  with 
their  respective  ages,  an  open  question  to  be  settled, 
if  possible,  by  historians  and  scientists.  Biblical  chro- 
iiolog}-,  as  such,  has  no  bearing  on  dogma,  and  for  this 
reason  the  Church  has  never  given  the  matter  any 
attention,  and  most  likely  never  will. 

It  is  perfectly  manifest  that  the  genealogical  tables 
of  but  one  of  the  three  texts,  Hebrew,  Greek,  and 
Samaritan,  can  be  correct.  The  other  two  must  there- 
fore be  erroneous.  Which  one  is  right  and  which  are 
wrong  will  most  likely  ever  remain  a  matter  of  dispute. 
"Some  chronologists,"  says  Bergier,  "think  that  the 
Hebrews  have  shortened  their  chronology;  others  are  of 
the  opinion  that  the  Seventy  have  lengthened  the  period 
of  time  from  Adam  to  our  Lord;  while  others,  again, 
give  their  preference  to  the  Samaritan  text."  But 
none  of  these  three  opinions  are  susceptible  of  demon- 
strative proof  The  arguments  advanced  by  critics  in 
favor  of  any  of  these  divers  opinions  are  at  best  serious, 
never  decisive. 

But  it  is  not  certain  that  any  of  the  three  texts  gives 
the  exact  figures  contained  in  the  original,  authentic 
(?opy  of  Genesis.  If  two.  of  the  texts  are  manifestly 
erroneous  in  so  far  as  they  refer  to  the  genealogical 
lists  of  the  patriarchs,  it  is  far  from  certain  that  the 
third  is  not  likewise  incorrect.  It  is  impossible  to 
prove  that  the  original  figures  have  not  been  altered 
by  copyists,  either  intentionally  or  through  inadvert- 
ence, and  hence  we  have  no  warrant  for  concluding, 
as  is  so  often  done,  that  even  the  oldest  copy  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  existence  contains  the  exact  numbers 
written  by  Moses.     For  this  reason  it  is  that  Mgr. 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN   RACE.  30 1 

Meigiiaii  does  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  "  the  precise 
date  of  the  apparition  of  man  on  the  earth  cannot  be 
determined  with  certitnde. " 

If  the  alterations  were  bnt  few  and  of  bnt  small 
moment,  we  should  be  justified  in  fixing  the  date  of 
the  creation  of  Adam  somewhere  between  4000  and 
7000  years  B.  c. — a  wide  margin,  it  is  true — and  of 
placing  the  age  of  our  race  at  between  six  thousand 
and  nine  thousand  years.  This  we  may  assume  until 
evidence  is  forthcoming  to  the  contrary. 


Lacun.^  in  Genealogical  Lists. 

But  just  here  we  are  confronted  with  another  and, 
if  anything,  a  more  serious  difficulty.  Are  we  sure 
that  the  lists  of  the  antediluvian  and  postdiluvian 
patriarchs  are  complete?  Have  we  any  positive  evi- 
dence that  they  are  not  fragmentary,  and  that  there 
are  wo  lacun(B  in  them?  Far  from  it.  On  the  con- 
trary, there  are  grave  reasons  for  believing  that  many 
links  in  the  chain  are  lacking,  and  that  the  catalogue 
of  the  descendants  of  Adam  in  a  direct  line  to  Abra- 
ham is  probably  incomplete.  It  must  be  said,  how- 
ever, that  there  is  no  direct  evidence  in  Genesis  of 
such  gaps.  It  is  furnished  rather  by  passages  from 
other  portions  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and 
made  more  plausible  by  extrinsic  considerations  based 
on  the  declarations  of  science  and  history. 

"The  genealogies  of  the  Bible,"  observes  M.  Wallon, 
"having  for  object  to  give  us  the  filiation  of  men  and 
not  the  succession  of  time,  and  being  able  therefore 
to  suppress  intermediaries,   no  calculation  can,   with 


302  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

any  degree  of  certainty,  go  beyond  Abraham."*  In 
another  place  the  same  judicious  writer  asserts  that 
"the  chronology  of  the  Bible  can  be  established  only 
by  genealogical  lists.  But  the  Orientals  in  their  gen- 
ealogies have  a  care  for  only  one  thing — to  follow  the 
direct  line,  without  attaching  special  importance  to 
intermediaries.  Thus,  whole  generations  are  sup- 
pressed, and  as  a  consequence  years,  and  even  cen- 
turies, are  taken  from  our  calculations."  Long  ago, 
before  the  advance  of  science  indicated  the  necessity 
of  an  extension  of  time  for  the  patriarchal  age,  Father 
Lequien  wrote  as  follows:  "It  is  possible  that  Moses 
deemed  it  proper  to  make  mention  of  only  ten  of  the 
principal  patriarchs  who  lived  before  the  Deluge,  and 
of  ten  others  who  lived  between  this  epoch  and  Abra- 
ham, omitting  the  others  for  reasons  to  us  unknown, 
as  St.  iMatthew  has  done  in  the  genealogy  of  our  Lord, 
and  as  the  authors  of  the  book  of  Ruth  and  of  the  first 
book  of  Paralipomenon  have  done  in  that  of  David 
and  in  that  of  the  high  priests."  ^ 

To  the  instances  adduced  by  Lequien,  Vigouroux 
cites  others.  Thus,  "even  in  the  Pentateuch,  Laban, 
the  grandson  of  Nachor,  is  called  his  son,  through 
the  omission  of  the  name  of  Bathuel,  his  father. 
Jochabed,  the  mother  of  Moses,  is  called  the  daughter 
of  Levi ^  although  Levi  was  certainly  dead  a  long  time 
before  her  birth.  In  the  first  book  of  Paralipomenon, 
Subael,  a  contemporary  of  David,  is  spoken  of  as  the 
son  of  Gerson,  who  was  the  son  of  IVIoses  and  lived 
many  ages   before.     In    the   third    and  fourth   books 

^  La  Samte  Bible  Resumee,  I.  tome  i.  p.  435. 
"^  Quoted  b}-  Vigouroux  in  the  Revue  des  Questions  scien- 
tijiques,  October,  1886,  p.  371. 


<^ 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN   RACE.  303 

of  Kings,  as  well  as  in  the  second  book  of  Paralipom- 
enon,  Jehn  is  named  the  son  of  Namsi^  notwithstand- 
ing he  was  his  grandson.  In  Esdras,  Addo,  who  was 
the  grandfather,  is  called  the  father,  of  Zachary.  Our 
Saviour,  as  is  well  known,  is  often  spoken  of  as  the 
son  of  David.  The  Gospel  of  St.  Luke  according  to 
the  Septuagint  contains  in  the  genealogical  tree  of  our 
Lord,  as  all  are  aware,  a  name — that  of  Cainan — which 
is  wanting  in  the  genealogical  list  of  St.  Matthew,  and 
which  is  not  found  at  all  in  the  Hebrew  and  Samaritan 
texts." 

A  far  more  striking  example  of  the  existence  of 
lactmcB  in  genealogical  trees  is  afforded  by  St.  Matthew. 
From  the  list  of  the  ancestors  of  our  Saviour  he  ex- 
cludes, and  to  all  appearances  intentionally,  three  well- 
known  royal  names — Ochozias,  Joas,  and  Amasias.^ 
This  suppression  is  the  more  especially  deserving  of 
attention  inasmuch  as  it  may  enable  us  to  detect  the 
motive  of  the  systematic  omission  of  a  number  of 
links  in  the  genealogical  chain.  It  seems,  indeed,  to 
have  been  for  mnemotechnic  reasons.  As  the  genea- 
'  logical  tables  were  learned  by  heart,  numerous  expe- 
dients were  resorted  to  in  order  to  facilitate  the  labor 
of  the  memory  and  to  enable  it  to  retain  the  dry  lists 
of  names.  With  this  object  in  view,  and  indicating 
at  the  same  time  his  method  of  procedure,  the  Evan- 

'  It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  spite  of  this  triple  suppression 
the  Evangelist  uses  the  word  genuit-  -Joram  genuit  Oziam — 
although  Ozias  was  the  son  of  Amasias.  This  proves  that 
the  Hebrews,  like  the  Orientals  generally,  did  not  always 
employ  this  expression  in  its  strict  sense.  The  word  is  the 
consecrated  term  always  employed  in  the  genealogical  lists, 
and  may  signify  mediate  as  well  as  immediate  filiation. 


304  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

gelist  has  subdivided  the  entire  series  into  three  groups 
of  fourteen  members  each.  And  because  the  second 
would  have  had  seventeen  in  lieu  of  fourteen  mem- 
bers, which  would  have  destroyed  the  economy  of 
distribution,  he  eliminates  three  of  them,  "We  may 
suspect,"  continues  Vigouroux,  "an  analogous  mne- 
motechnic  reason  for  the  two  patriarchal  genealogies. 
They  seem,  indeed,  to  be  based  on  even  a  more  simple 
system.  They  each  one  reckon  before  and  after  the 
Deluge  ten  names,  the  number  easiest  to  remember, 
the  number  which  corresponds  to  the  ten  fingers  of 
the  two  hands,  and  that,  too,  on  which  the  decimal 
system  is  founded  the  world  over." 

In  a  word,  the  decimal  number  of  the  patriarchs 
before  and  after  the  Deluge,  and  the  custom  of  the 
Orientals  often  to  suppress  intermediate  members  in 
their  genealogical  lists,  all  authorize  us  to  admit  the 
possibility  of  hiatuses  in  the  enumeration  which  ]Moses 
makes  of  the  direct  descendants  from  Adam  to  Abra- 
ham. But  if  this  be  so,  the  date  of  the  creation  of 
man  may  go  back  much  farther  than  has  hitherto  been 
believed,  because  it  would  then  be  necessary  to  extend 
it  by  the  duration  of  the  life  of  all  those  personages 
omitted  in  the  catalogues  of  Genesis,  The  epoch, 
consequently,  of  the  apparition  of  man  on  the  earth 
is  entirely  uncertain,  not  only  because  we  are  igno- 
rant of  the  true  figures  written  by  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch,  as  we  have  already  seen,  but  also,  and 
more  especially,  because  we  do  not  know  what  may 
be  the  number  of  hiatuses  in  the  genealogical  series. 
If  the  alteration  of  figures  can  affect  the  antiquity  of 
man  only  to  a  limited  extent,  it  is  quite  otherwise  with 
the  omission  of  whole  generations,  because  if  these 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN    RACE.  305 

omissions  be  numerous  the  date  of  the  first  man  may 
be  put  back  many  centuries. 

In  consulting,  therefore,  only  the  Bible,  we  are  left 
in  a  state  of  complete  uncertainty  regarding  the  antiq- 
uity of  our  race.  It  is  possible  that  according  to  the 
actual  Hebrew  text  it  is  but  six  thousand  years;  it  is 
possible  that  it  is  eight  thousand  years,  according  to  the 
Septuagint;  it  is  also  possible  to  suppose  that  it  dates 
back  much  farther  by  reason  of  the  lacunae  which  we 
are  justified  in  assuming  to  exist  in  the  genealogical 
trees.  Such  is  the  final  conclusion  to  which  we  are 
led  by  a  critical  study  of  the  Sacred  Text — uncertainty 
and  ignorance.^ 

These  views  of  the  distinguished  Sulpician  are 
shared  by  many  other  modern  exegetists  whose  eru- 
dition is  as  profound  as  their  orthodoxy  in  matters  of 
dogma  is  unquestionable.  Among  these  may  specially 
be  mentioned  the  learned  Jesuits,  Fathers  Belly  nek,  ^ 
Knabenbauer,^  and  Brucker.*  Father  Belly  nek  de- 
clares emphatically  that  "there  does  not  exist  any 
chronology  in  the  Bible.  The  genealogies  of  our 
Sacred  Books,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "from  which  a 
series  of  dates  has  been  deduced,  present  occasional 
gaps.  How  many  years  are  missing  from  this  broken 
chain  ?  We  cannot  tell.  It  is  therefore  permitted 
science  to  put  back  the  Deluge  as  many  years  as  sci- 
ence may  judge  necessary."     Father  Brucker  main- 

'  Loc.  cit.,  pp.  372  et  seq. 

'■  Etudes  rcligiciiscs,  art.  "  Anthropologie,"  April,  1868. 

•''  Stiminen  aus  Maria  Laach,  art.  "  Bibel  unci  Chronologic," 

1S74,  pp.  362-372. 

*  La  Cotitroverse,  art.  "  La  Chronologic  des  l^remiers  Ages  de 
I'Humanite,"    March,  1886,  and  "  Quelques  Eclaircissements 
sur  la  Chronologic  biblique,"  September,  1886. 
20 


306  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND    EAITH. 

•tains  the  existence  of  gaps  in  the  list  of  postdihivian 
patriarchs  in  order  to  account  for  the  various  ethno- 
logical and  linguistic  types  of  humanity  that  are  known 
to  have  been  formed  during  the  interval  between  the 
Flood  and  the  time  of  Abraham.  Hence  he  does  not 
hesitate  to  assert  that  "  we  are  free  to  add  to  the  vul- 
gar date  of  the  Deluge  as  many  centuries  as  serious 
and  scientific  reasons  may  demand." 

Scriptural  Chronology  and  Church  Teaching. 

The  learned  Sulpician,  the  Abbe  de  Foville,  gives 
in  a  nutshell  the  Catholic  doctrine  on  the  subject  when 
he  declares  that  "  the  Bible  indicates  in  a  measure 
which  suffices  for  its  divine  scope  the  chronological 
order  of  the  facts  which  it  relates.  But  the  Holy 
Spirit  not  having  inspired  it  in  order  to  found  or  cast 
light  upon  the  science  of  chronology,  we  should  not 
seek  in  it  a  detailed  and  precise  chronology,  a  complete 
system  of  dates  accurately  indicated,  methodicalh-  con- 
nected, and  perfectly  preserved." 

The  Abbe  Bourgeois,  the  distinguished  archaeol- 
ogist, and  to  the  day  of  his  death  an  ardent  champion 
of  Tertiary  man,  is  not  less  positive  when  he  affirms 
that  "the  text  of  the  Bible  is  brief  and  obscure;  geol- 
ogy and  prehistoric  archaeology,  notwithstanding  some 
truths  which  have  been  acquired,  are  not  less  obscure 
in  respect  to  many  essential  points.  Why  establish 
premature  concordances,  and  not  rather  wait  for  light, 
with  the  well-founded  confidence  that  scientific  truth 
can  never  be  opposed  to  religious  truth?"' 

'  In  our  endeavors  to  explain  biblico-scientific  questions 
like  the  one  we  are  now  discussing  we  should  always  have 
before  our  minds  the  first  paragraph  of  the  admirable  sura- 


THE   AGE   OF   THE    HUMAN   RACE.  307 

Modern  science  has  certainly  discovered  nothing 
that  shonld  in  the  least  change  or  weaken  our  faith  or 
shake  our  confidence  in  any  of  those  verities  which 

mar\'  of  the  Holy  Father's  recent  encyclical  on  The  Study  of 
the  Sacred  Scripture.  After  laying  down  rules  for  the  guidance 
of  students  of  the  Sacred  Text,  the  Doctor  of  the  Faithful 
writes:  "Let  them  loyally  hold  that  God,  the  Creator  and 
Ruler  of  all  things,  is  also  the  Author  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
that,  therefore,  nothing  can  be  proved,  either  b}^  physical 
science  or  archaeology,  which  can  really  contradict  the  Scrip- 
ture. If  then,  apparent  contradiction  be  met  with,  every 
effort  should  be  made  to  remove  it.  Judicious  theologians 
and  commentators  should  be  consulted  as  to  what  is  the  true 
or  most  probable  meaning  of  the  passage  in  discussion,  and 
the  hostile  arguments  should  be  carefully  weighed.  Even 
if  the  difficulty  is,  after  all,  not  cleared  up,  and  the  discrep- 
ancy seems  to  remain,  the  contest  must  not  be  abandoned : 
truth  cannot  contradict  truth,  and  we  may  be  sure  that  some 
mistake  has  been  made,  either  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
sacred  words  or  in  the  polemical  discxission  itself;  and  if  no 
such  mistake  can  be  detected,  Ave  must  suspend  judgment  for 
the  time  being.  There  have  been  objections  without  number 
perseveringly  directed  against  the  Scripture  for  many  a  long 
year  which  have  been  proved  to  be  futile,  and  are  never  heard 
of;  and  not  unfrequentfv  interpretations  have  been  placed  on 
certain  pa.ssages  of  vScripture  (not  l^elonging  to  the  rule  of 
faith  or  morals)  which  have  been  rectified  by  more  careful 
investigations.  As  time  goes  on,  mistaken  views  die  and 
disappear,  but  '  truth  remaineth,  and  groweth  stronger  for 
ever  and  ever. '  Wherefore,  as  no  one  should  be  so  presump- 
tuous as  to  think  that  he  understands  the  whole  of  the  Scrip- 
ture, in  which  St.  Augustine  himself  confessed  that  there  was 
more  that  he  did  not  know  than  that  he  knew,  so,  if  he  should 
come  upon  anything  that  seems  incapable  of  solution,  he 
must  take  to  heart  the  cautious  rule  of  the  same  hoh-  Doctor : 
'  It  is  better  even  to  be  oppressed  by  unknown  useful  signs 
than  to  interpret  them  uselessly,  and  thus  to  throw  off  the 
yoke  only  to  be  caught  in  the  trap  of  error.'  " 


/ 


308  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

the  Church  proposes  for  our  belief.  Ouly  those  who 
are  ill-informed,  or  who  take  a  one-sided  view  of  the 
discussion  which  has  engaged  our  attention  in  these 
pages,  see  in  the  question  of  the  antiquity  of  man  any 
cause  for  apprehension  as  to  the  ultimate  results  to 
which  a  thorough  ventilation  of  the  subject  will  lead. 
Learned  archaeologists  and  theologians  like  the  Abbes 
Bourgeois  and  Delaunay  and  Valroger,  who  devoted 
the  best  years  of  their  lives  to  the  study  and  elucida- 
tion of  this  and  cognate  subjects,  never  came  across 
anything  in  their  investigations — and  they  were  al- 
ways in  the  front  rank  of  the  scientific  movement — to 
discourage  them  or  to  cause  them  to  think,  even  for  a 
moment,  that  science  and  religion  are  irreconcilable. 
Far  from  it.  The  lives  and  the  works  of  these  pious 
and  erudite  advocates  of  our  holy  faith  afford  us  a 
striking  illustration  of  the  liberty  of  thought  permitted 
to  the  Catholic  investigator  in  matters  of  science  and 
speculation.  When  Abbe  Bourgeois  thought  he  had 
demonstrated  the  existence  of  Tertiary  man  by  his 
discovery  of  the  flint  flakes  at  Thenay,  he  saw  no  rea- 
son for  rejecting  the  scriptural  chronology^,  and  still 
\  less  for  impunging  the  authenticity  and  inspiration  of 
the  Bible  as  held  by  the  Church.  Granting  that  the 
flints  discovered  by  him  were  fabricated  by  rational 
beings,  might  not  such  beings  belong  to  a  distinct  spe- 
cies from  that  descended  from  Adam — a  species  extinct 
before  the  time  of  our  first  ancestor,  and  a  species, 
consequently,  about  which  the  Scripture  is  silent? 
Nay,  even,  may  there  not  have  been  many  species  of 
the  genus  Homo — Preadamites — who  lived  and  died 
before  the  apparition  of  Adam  and  the  race  of  which 
he  is  the  father  ?    Neither  the  Abbe  Bourgeois  nor  the 


V 


THE  AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN   RACE.  309 

Abbe  Delauiiay  saw  in  this  hypothesis  anything  con- 
trary to  the  Catholic  dogma.  It  is  something  that 
does  not  come  within  the  purview  of  Scripture — which 
deals  only  with  the  Adaniic  species— and  which  does 
not  in  the  least  militate  against  any  of  the  truths  pro- 
posed by  the  Church  for  our  acceptance.  The  Abbe 
Fabre  d'Envieu  and  the  Abbe  Valroger,  a  distinguished 
member  of  the  French  Oratory,  did  not  hesitate  to 
advance  as  a  conjectural  hypothesis  the  existence  of  a 
race  of  rational  beings— Preadamites  ^ — distinct  from 
our  own,  as  a  means  of  meeting  the  difficulty  raised 
f  by  the  alleged  discovery  of  Tertiary  man.^  But  their 
theory  was  not  needed,  for  Tertiary  man,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  a  chimcsra^  and  the  concurrent  testimony  of 
the  ablest  geologists  and  archaeologists  of  the  day 
relegates  his  existence  to  the  limbo  of  exploded  hy- 
potheses and  fantastical  speculations.^ 

Summary  and  Conclusion. 

To  resume.  The  evidence  we  have  examined  re- 
garding the  age  of  our  race  proves  one  thing,   and 

^  It  is  scarcely  necessarj^  to  observe  that  the  Preadamites  of 
Valroger  and  his  confreres  do  not  come  tinder  the  categor}-  of 
the  Preadamites  of  La  Peyrere,  whose  doctrines  in  this  matter 
were  condemned  by  the  Church.  The  theory  of  La  Peyrere  in 
a  modified  form  was  advocated  by  the  late  Prof.  Winchell  in  his 
voluminous  work,  Preadamites. 

'^  The  hypothesis  was  favorably  commented  on  by  the  elo- 
quent Pere  Monsabre  in  his  Conferences  de  Notre  Dame,  pp.  68, 
69. 

'  See  two  letters  of  the  Abb^  Delaunay,  the  learned  and  zeal- 
ous collaborator  of  the  Abb6  Bourgeois,  on  the  flints  of  Thenay 
and  their  bearing  on  Tertiary  man,  in  the  appendix  to  vol.  iii. 
of  Vigouroux's  Les  Livres  Saints  et  la  Critique  rationaliste. 


3IO  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,  AND   FAITH. 

proves  it  most  conclusively,  and  that  is,  that  the  ques- 
tion we  have  been  discussingr  is  far  from  beino-  defin- 
itively  answered  either  by  Scripture  or  science,  and 
according  to  present  indications  it  seems  improbable 
that  we  shall  ever  have  a  certain  answer  regarding  this 
much-controverted  topic.  The  testimony  of  astronomy 
does  not,  as  such,  make  either  for  or  against  the  bibli- 
cal chronology,  because  astronomy  as  a  science  was  not 
cultivated  until  some  thousands  of  years  after  the  ad- 
vent of  man  on  the  earth.  The  testimony  of  histor}', 
and  especially  the  history  which  takes  us  back  farthest 
— the  history  of  Egypt,  Assyria,  Chaldea,  and  Baby- 
lonia— admirably  corroborates  the  testimony  of  the 
Bible  concerning  the  antiquity  of  man.  The  sciences 
of  linguistics,  ethnology,  and  physiology  have  dis- 
covered nothing  which  is  incompatible  with  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  chronology  of  Scripture  as  understood 
by  our  most  competent  apologists.  The  statements  of 
geology  and  prehistoric  archaeology  are  so  vague  and 
conflicting  and  extravagant  that  nothing  definite  can 
be  gathered  from  them  beyond  the  apparently  indis- 
putable fact  that  the  age  of  our  species  is  greater  than 
the  advocates  of  the  Hebrew  and  Samaritan  texts  of 
the  Bible  have  been  wont  to  admit.  It  may,  however, 
be  asserted  positively  that  no  certain  geologic  or 
archseologic  evidence  so  far  adduced  is  irreconcilable 
with  a  chronology  which  we  are  warranted  in  deduc- 
ing from  the  known  facts  and  genealogical  records  of 
the  Book  of  books.'  Until  other  and  more  conclusive 
evidence  is  forthcoming,  the  chronology  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  as  read  in  the  light  of  modern  Catholic  exe- 
gesis, is  abundantly  competent  to  meet  all  the  real 
difficulties    regarding   the    antiquity   of    man   which 


THE   AGE   OF   THE   HUMAN    RACE.  311 

have  been  proclaimed  to  the  world  with  such  pomp 
and  circumstance  by  geologists  and  archaeologists 
during  the  past  few  decades. 

The  late  Abbe  Moigno,  who  made  an  exhaustive 
study  of  all  the  evidence  bearing  on  the  question, 
gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  "the  exact  date  of  the 
creation  of  man,  of  his  first  appearance  on  the  earth, 
remains  entirely  uncertain  or  unknown,  but  that  there 
would  be  some  rashness  in  carrying  it  back  beyond 
eight  thousand  years."  ^ 

Canon  Hamard,  one  of  the  most  eminent  archaeol- 
ogists of  France,  says  in  reference  to  this  subject 
"that  it  is  necessary  to  adopt  the  chronology  of  the 
Septuagint,  as  affording  us  notably  more  time,  we 
are  convinced,  but  we  fail  to  see  any  reason  for 
carrying  this  chronology  beyond  the  eight  or  ten 
thousand  years  which  it  accords  us  as  a  maximum."  ^ 
Father  Hewit,  C.  S.  P.,  writes:  "Thus  far,  we  have 
not  seen  any  plausible  reason  to  put  back  the  begin- 
nings of  the  human  race  to  an  earlier  period  than 
10,000  years  b.  c.  We  are  firmly  convinced  that  a 
concurrence  of  proofs  from  all  branches  of  science 
bearing  on  the  subject,  scriptural  exegesis  included, 
requires  the  admission  of  a  date  for  the  creation  of  the 
human  species  at  least  ten  or  twenty  centuries  earlier 
than  the  vulgar  era  of  4004  b.  c.^ 

^  Splendeurs  de  la  Foi,  tome  ii.  p.  612. 

^  Les  Science  et  V Apologetique  chretienne,  P-  3i-  Cf.  the  arti- 
cle by  the  same  writer  on  "Adam,"  in  ih.e  Dictionnaire  de  la 
Bible,  public  par  F.  Vig'ouroux,  fascicule  i.,  as  also  his  articles 
on  LJ  Antiquitc  de  V Homme,  published  in  1886-87  in  La  Contro- 
verse  et  le  Contemporain. 

*  The  Catholic  World,  Januar>%  1885,  p.  451. 


312  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

Abbe     Vigouronx,     who,     although     conservative, 
never  flinches  before  a  difficulty,   says:    "We  main- 
tain, it  is  true,  that  the  progress  of  the  civilizations 
which   flourished    in    Egypt   and    Chaldea    from    the 
times  of   the  most   ancient    kings  whose    names  are 
known  to  us,  as  well  as  the  discoveries  of  geologists 
and  palaeontologists,  demand  a  longer  time  than  the 
1    chronology  of  the  Septuagint  allows  us;  but  here  all 
I    calculation  becomes  impossible,  and  we  can  but  say  to 
i    the  archaeologists  and  savants,  Establish  by  irrefraga- 
j    ble  proofs  the  antiquity  of  man  and  of  the  people  of 
the  earlier  ages,  and  the  Bible  will  not  contradict  it. 
Does  it  not  give  us  to  understand  that  it  leaves  these 
j    questions    to    the    discussion    of   men,    provided    they 
1   keep   within    the   bounds   of    sound    criticism,    when 
I  it  declares  through  Ecclesiasticus,  Arenatn  maris  et 
pliivicE  giUtas   et  dies  scBCiili^   quis   dinumeravit?^ — 
"Who  hath  numbered  the  sand  of  the   sea  and  the 
"N.  drops  of  rain  and  the  days  of  the  world?" 

As  to  myself,  I  incline  to  a  liberal  but  legitimate 
interpretation  of  the  version  of  the  Septuagint,  and 
am  disposed  to  attribute  to  man  an  antiquity  of  about 
ten  thousand  years.  It  may  be  a  little  more  or  it  may 
be  a  little  less.  Certain  it  is  that  there  is  not  as  yet 
a  single  known  fact  which  necessitates  an  extension 
of  this  period.  Future  research  may  indeed  raise  the 
figure  to  twelve  or  fifteen  thousand,  or  even  to  twenty 
thousand,  years,  but,  judging  from  the  evidence  now 
available,  and  bearing  in  mind  the  disposition  of 
many  of  our  most  eminent  scientists  to  shorten  rather 

'  Revue  des  Questions  scientifiques,  October,  i886,  p.  407.  Cf. 
Manuel  biblique,  tome  i.  p.  568,  and  Les  Livres  Saiiits  et  la 
Critique  rationaliste,  vol.  iii.  p.  547. 


THE   AGE   OF  THE    HUMAN   RACE.  313 

than  prolong  the  age  of  our  species,  it  seems  more 
likely  that  the  general  consensus  of  chronologists  will 
ultimately  fix  on  a  number  which  shall  be  below  rather 
than  above  ten  thousand  years  as  the  nearest  approxi- 
mation to  the  age  of  our  race/ 

^  Nearly  a  year  after  the  preceding  paragraph  was  written  I 
was  gratified  to  find  that  both  Mgr.  d'Hulst  and  M.  le  Mar- 
quis de  Nadaillac  entertain  similar  views  to  my  own  in  respect 
to  the  age  of  the  human  race.  Mgr.  d'Hulst,  the  distin- 
guished rector  of  the  Catholic  University  of  Paris  and  the 
eloquent  preacher  of  Notre  Dame,  in  his  admirable  bro- 
chure. La  Question  biblique,  is  disposed  to  put  the  antiquity- 
of  man  at  about  ten  thousand  years.  In  a  learned  paper  in 
Le  Corresporidant  for  Nov.  10  and  25,  1893,  the  Marquis  de  Na- 
daillac, who  is  recognized  as  one  of  the  ablest  archaeologists  of 
Europe,  sums  up  the  evidence  for  the  age  of  our  species  as  fol- 
lows :  "  II  est  impossible  de  ne  pas  etre  frappe  de  la  concor- 
dance des  calculs  geologiques  avec  les  donn^es  que  nous  avons 
emprixntees  a  I'histoire  et  a  I'arch^ologie.  Appuyes  sur  des  faits 
indeniables,  sur  tons  ceux  actuellenient  connus,  nous  repe- 
terons  que  la  limite  extreme  qui  Ton  peut  assigner  a  I'human- 
it€,  depuis  la  creation,  ne  saurait  guere  depasser  10,000  ans." 

Views  essentially  identical  are  expressed  by  Padre  Mir,  S.  J., 
in  his  erudite  work,  La  Creadon,  and  by  Cardinal  Gonzales  in 
La  Biblia  y  la  Ciencia.  In  closing  his  thoughtful  chapter  on 
the  antiquity  of  man,  his  Eminence  thus  observes:  "  En  todo 
caso,  lo  que  aqui  no  debe  perderse  de  vista,  y  lo  que  en  realidad 
representa  el  pensamiento  cristiano  con  relacion  a  este  pro- 
blema,  es  que  ni  la  Biblia  ni  la  Iglesia  ensenan  nada  concreto  y 
fijo  acerca  del  tiempo  transcurrido  desde  Adam  hasta  nosotros, 
y  que,  por  consiguiente,  hoj-  por  hoy  la  ciencia,  por  este  lado, 
tiene  el  camino  expedito  para  entregarse  d  sus  investigaciones 
propias,  formular  hipotesis,  y,  sobre  todo,  acumular  hechos  y 
dates  que  puedan  conducirla  k  la  solucion  definitiva  del  pro- 
blema.  Entretanto,  es  prudencia,  no  solo  cristiana,  sino  cien- 
tifica,  suspender  el  juicio  en  cosa  tan  dudosa,  de  conformidad 
con  el  conseje  de  vSan  Augustin  :  Set^jata  semper  inoderatio7ie 
pice  gravitatis,  ?iihil  credere  de  re  obscura  temere  debemusy 


314  lilBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

The  question,  in  reality,  is  one  which  is  to  be  settled 
by  history  rather  than  by  natural  science,  whatever 
geologists  and  archaeologists  may  say  to  the  contrar\-. 
It  is  precisely  in  questions  like  this  that  history,  to 
use  the  happy  expression  of  Cicero,  is  not  only  the 
mmtia  vetustatis — "the  messenger  of  antiquity"  — 
but  also  the  hix  veritatis — "the  torch  of  truth  "  — 
without  which  we  must  for  ever  hopelessly  grope  in 
darkness.  Science  may  adduce  facts  regarding  the 
age  of  our  race,  but  history,  and  history  alone,  must 
be  their  chief  and,  ofttimes,  their  sole  interpreter. 
Thus  far,  the  conclusions  of  authentic  history  and 
the  teachings  of  Holy  Writ  respecting  the  age  of 
the  human  race  are  so  marvellously  concordant  that 
they  may  be  considered  as  giving  teslimony  which  is 
identical.  Aside  from  certain  apparent  discrepancies, 
resulting  from  lack  of  information  or  misinterpretation 
of  fact,  there  has  never  been  any  serious  conflict  be- 
tween the  two;  there  is  no  conflict  now,  and  I  am 
firmly  convinced  there  will  be  none  in  the  future, 
because,  from  the  Catholic  point  of  view,  a  conflict 
is  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case  impossible.  And 
I  make  this  declaration,  not  in  the  spirit  of  special 
pleading,  not  because  I  love  science  less  and  the  Bible 
more,  not  because  I  assume  that  there  is  or  can  be  an 
attitude  of  hostility  on  the  part  of  science — I  do  not 
mean  theory — toward  religion;  not  because  I  ignore 
facts  or  minimize  logical  deductions  from  facts  ob- 
served, but  because  I  am  as  firmly  convinced  as  I  can 
be  of  anything  that  God  is  the  Lord  of  science,  that 
science  is  the  handmaid  of  religion,  that  the  two, 
speaking  of  the  same  Author,  although  in  different 
tongues,  must  voice  the  same  testimony,  and  that  this 


THE   AGE  OF  THE    HUMAN   RACE.  315 

testimony  must  be  not  only  unequivocally  true,   but 
,also    unequivocally   one.      I    fear    not    facts — I    have' 

/  been  searching  for  them  all  my  life — but  experience 
<.    has  led  me  to  distrust  theories  which  are  prematurely 

^  formulated.  I  welcome  now  all  facts,  as  I  always' 
have  welcomed  them,  bearing  on  the  age  of  our  race, 
and  I  am  certain  that  in  the  long  run,  when  all  the 
necessary  facts  are  reported  and  co-ordinated,  the  results 
will  be  as  harmonious  as  a  certain  school  would  now 
have  us  believe  they  are  discordant. 

We  could  not  have  a  more  striking  illustration  of 
the  vagaries  to  which  the  unguided  human  intellect 
is  subject  than  is  afforded  by  the  vacillating  and 
extravagant  notions  it  has  entertained  regarding  the 
antiquity  of  man.  It  has  been  willing  to  believe 
everything  as  possible,  and  to  accept  the  most  man- 
ifest absurdities  as  tenable.  For  more  than  a  genera- 
tion past  we  have  been  asked  to  accept  as  veritable 
science  what  was  obviously  nothing  more  than  a  tis- 
sue of  arrogant  and  threadbare  conceits — a  reflection 
of  individual  fancy  and  not  a  mirror  of  the  facts  of 
nature.  Like  the  spectre  of  the  Brocken,  the  science 
of  many  of  our  "advanced  thinkers"  is  but  an  empty 
shadow  of  their  own  mind's  throwing — a  magnified, 
intangible,  evanescent  phantom  projected  on  a  back- 
ground of  cloud  and  mist.  The  theories  are,  indeed, 
made  plausible  to  an  unsuspecting  public,  because 
they  are  presented  with  all  the  enchantments  of  per- 
suasive speech.  For  their  authors,  truth  to  tell,  often 
possess  what  St.  Augustine  characterizes  as  the  illecc- 
brcB  suaviloquenticB — what  Renan  happily  designates 
as  une  certainc  habilite  dans  V  a7't  a"*  anicncr  Ics  cliquctis 
des  mots^  et  des  idccs ;  but  all  this  is  but  a  specious 


3l6  BIBLE,   SCIENCE,   AND   FAITH. 

cloak  for  uncertainty  and  ignorance.  The  inductions 
from  false  premises  which  we  are  bidden  to  regard  as 
the  last  word  of  science  are  frequently  as  hypothetical 
as  the  chimcEra  bombinans  in  vacuo  of  the  mediaeval 
metaphysicians.  But  such  is  the  vogue  of  much  that 
passes  under  the  name  of  modern  science,  not  in  any 
one  particular  part  of  the  earth,  but  the  world  over 
from  Copenhagen  to  Lisbon, 

"  a  Gadibus  usque 
Auroram  et  Gangen." 

We  must,  however,  regard  it  as  one  of  the  manifesta- 
tions of  the  Zeitgeist  of  our  generation.  For,  be  it 
known,  the  Zeitgeist  is  a  capricious  being  and  more 
changeable  than  Proteus.  It  knows  how  to  satisfy  its 
votaries,  who,  like  the  Athenians  and  the  strangers 
whom  St.  Paul  addressed  on  the  Areopagus,  "employed 
themselves  in  nothing  else  but  either  in  telling  or  in 
hearino^  some  new  thing."  '  But  recent  events  and 
revelations  in  every  department  of  science  seem  to 
betoken  a  speedy  return  to  a  more  serious  and  a  more 
conservative  regime.  The  fin-de-siecle,  dilettante  man 
of  science  is  fast  losing  the  prestige  he  once  had,  and 
scientists  generally,  who  have  long  been  travelling  in 
an  orbit  of  great  eccentricity,  are  rapidly  returning  to 
perihelion — to  the  centre  of  light  and  truth  where 
flames  for  all  earnest  seekers  after  knowledge  the  light 
of  science  and  wisdom. 

'  Acts  of  the  Apostles  xvii.  21. 


liCSB   UBRARy 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


MAY  2  2  HH^ 

imii  6  zi 

RETURBED     JLIN8    198l9 


lOOM  11/86  Series  94«2 


A    000  656  252     4 


■    \ 


V    ;V 


